Compliance of Systematic Reviews in Plastic Surgery With the PRISMA Statement

IMPORTANCE: 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. OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The sum of PRISMA checklist items (1-27) per systematic review. RESULTS: 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%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: 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. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.