Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology

Journal of Hand Surgery: European Volume

Volumn 42, Issue 8, 2017, Pages 852-856

  Wasiak, J ^a   Shen, A Y ^b   Ware, R ^c,d   O'Donohoe, T J ^e   Faggion, C M ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b BOX HILL HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^d GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^e TOWNSVILLE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Hand pathology; hand surgery; orthopaedic surgery; plastic surgery; wrist pathology

Indexed keywords

ARTHROPATHY; HAND INJURY; HAND JOINT; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

DATA ACCURACY; HAND INJURIES; HAND JOINTS; HUMANS; JOINT DISEASES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 85029021998     PISSN: 17531934     EISSN: 20436289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1753193417712660     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Agha RA, Camm CF, Doganay E, Edison E, Siddiqui MRS, Orgill DP,. Randomised controlled trials in plastic surgery: a systematic review of reporting quality. Eur J Plast Surg. 2014, 37: 55-62.
2. Askie L, Offringa M,. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015, 20: 403-9.
3. Faggion C,. Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015, 15: 1-5.
4. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014, 383: 267-76.
5. Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M,. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol. 2002, 31: 115-23.
6. Lee SY, Sagoo H, Whitehurst K, et al. Compliance of systematic reviews in plastic surgery with the PRISMA statement. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2016, 18: 101-5.
7. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009, 339: b2700.
8. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG,. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007, 4: e78.
9. Momeni A, Lee GK, Talley JR,. The quality of systematic reviews in hand surgery: an analysis using AMSTAR. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013, 131: 831-7.
10. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016, 13: e1002028.
11. Pieper D, Mathes T, Eikermann M,. Can AMSTAR also be applied to systematic reviews of non-randomized studies? BMC Res Notes. 2014, 7: 609.
12. 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.
13. Samargandi OA, Hasan H, Thoma A,. Methodologic quality of systematic reviews published in the plastic and reconstructive surgery literature: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016, 137: 225e-36e.
14. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, Esmail K,. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology. 2013; 269: 413-26.
15. Zhang H, Han J, Zhu YB, et al. Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016, 70: 4-16.