Compliance of Systematic Reviews in Plastic Surgery With the PRISMA Statement

Systematic reviews attempt to answer research questions by synthesizing the data in primary articles. They are an increasingly important tool within evidence-based medicine, guiding clinical practice, future research, and health care policy.

To determine the reporting quality of recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses in plastic surgery with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement.

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for systematic reviews published between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014, in 5 major plastic surgery journals. Screening, identification, and data extraction were performed independently by 2 teams. Articles were reviewed for compliance with reporting of 27 items in the PRISMA checklist. Data analysis was conducted from January 1 to July 30, 2015.

The sum of PRISMA checklist items (1-27) per systematic review.

From an initial set of 163 articles, 79 met the inclusion criteria. The median PRISMA score was 16 of 27 items (59%) (range, 6%-26%; 95% CI, 14%-17%). Compliance varied between individual PRISMA items. It was poorest for items related to the use of review protocol (item 5; 4 articles [5%]) and presentation of data on the risk of bias of each study (item 19; 14 articles [18%]). Compliance was the highest for description of rationale (item 3; 78 articles [99%]), sources of funding and other support (item 27; 75 articles [95%]), and inclusion of a structured summary in the abstract (item 2; 75 articles [95%]).

The reporting quality of systematic reviews in plastic surgery requires improvement. Enforcement of compliance through journal submission systems, as well as improved education, awareness, and a cohesive strategy among all stakeholders, is called for.

NA.