Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management

Wasiak, Jason, Tyack, Zephanie, Ware, Robert, Goodwin, Nicholas and Faggion, Clovis M. (2016) Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management. International Wound Journal, 14 5: 754-763. doi:10.1111/iwj.12692


Author Wasiak, Jason
Tyack, Zephanie
Ware, Robert
Goodwin, Nicholas
Faggion, Clovis M.
Title Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management
Journal name International Wound Journal   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1742-4801
1742-481X
Publication date 2016-12-18
Year available 2016
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1111/iwj.12692
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 14
Issue 5
Start page 754
End page 763
Total pages 10
Place of publication Chichester, West Sussex United Kingdom
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing
Language eng
Subject 2746 Surgery
2708 Dermatology
Abstract The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as burn', systematic review' or meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 63; 95% CI: 38, 87) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 29; 95% CI: 16, 42; PRISMA regression coefficient 61; 95% CI: 31, 92) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 14; 95%CI: 04, 24; PRISMA regression coefficient 34; 95% CI: 09, 58). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.
Keyword Of-The-Literature
Randomized Controlled-Trials
Middle-Income Countries
Partial-Thickness Burns
Practice Guidelines
Prognostic-Factors
Outcome Measures
Thermal Burns
Wound Care
Injury
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: HERDC Pre-Audit
Child Health Research Centre Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 2 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 2 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sun, 05 Nov 2017, 09:38:23 EST