Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2013 Apr;131(4):831-837.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182818d24.

The quality of systematic reviews in hand surgery: an analysis using AMSTAR

Arash Momeni  1 , Gordon K Lee, John R Talley
Affiliations
Review

The quality of systematic reviews in hand surgery: an analysis using AMSTAR

Arash Momeni et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews constitute the top of the "level-of-evidence pyramid." Despite their strengths, they have been found to be of varying quality, thus raising concerns about their validity and role in influencing clinical practice. In the present study, a quality analysis of systematic reviews with a focus on hand surgery was performed.

Methods: A PubMed search was performed to identify all systematic reviews published up to and including December of 2011 in eight surgical journals. Two authors independently reviewed the literature and extracted data from included reviews. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Quality assessment was performed using AMSTAR.

Results: The initial search retrieved 687 articles. After screening titles and abstracts, 635 articles were excluded. Full-text review of the remaining 52 articles resulted in further exclusion of 10 articles, leaving 42 systematic reviews for final analysis. A significant increase in the number of published systematic reviews over time was noted (p = 0.04), with the majority of systematic reviews being published in The Journal of Hand Surgery (n = 19) and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (n = 12). Although a significant improvement in the quality of systematic reviews was noted over time (p = 0.01), a median AMSTAR score of 7 indicated the bulk of reviews to be of fair to good quality.

Conclusions: The trend to publish more systematic reviews in hand surgery is paralleled by an increase in the quality of systematic reviews. Nonetheless, increased efforts are indicated to further improve the quality of systematic reviews in hand surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al.. Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.
    1. Margaliot Z, Chung KC. Systematic reviews: A primer for plastic surgery research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:1834–1841.
    1. Sullivan D, Chung KC, Eaves FF III, Rohrich RJ. The level of evidence pyramid: Indicating levels of evidence in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery articles. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:311–314.
    1. Braga LH, Pemberton J, Demaria J, Lorenzo AJ. Methodological concerns and quality appraisal of contemporary systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric urology. J Urol. 2011;186:266–271.
    1. MacDonald SL, Canfield SE, Fesperman SF, Dahm P. Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008. J Urol. 2010;184:648–653.

LinkOut - more resources