PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Systematic review evidence is increasing within craniofacial surgery. Compliance with recognised reporting guidelines for systematic review evidence has not been assessed.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the compliance of systematic reviews published in craniofacial journals with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting criteria.
UNASSIGNED: Thomson Reuters impact factor was used to identify three top craniofacial journals. A search for all systematic review articles published in these journals from 1st May 2010 to 30th April 2015 was conducted using MEDLINE PubMed.
METHODS: Two independent researchers assessed each study for inclusion and performed the data extraction. Data included the article reference information; the pathology and interventions examined and compliance of each review article with the PRISMA checklist.
UNASSIGNED: 97 studies were returned by the search. 62 studies proceeded to data extraction. The mean percentage of applicable PRISMA items that were met across all studies was 72.5% (range 28.6-96.2%). The area of poorest compliance was with the declaration of a study protocol (19.4% of studies). Only 37.1% of studies declared their source of funding.
CONCLUSIONS: Compliance of systematic review articles within craniofacial surgery with areas of the PRISMA checklist could be improved.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the compliance of systematic reviews published in craniofacial journals with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting criteria.
UNASSIGNED: Thomson Reuters impact factor was used to identify three top craniofacial journals. A search for all systematic review articles published in these journals from 1st May 2010 to 30th April 2015 was conducted using MEDLINE PubMed.
METHODS: Two independent researchers assessed each study for inclusion and performed the data extraction. Data included the article reference information; the pathology and interventions examined and compliance of each review article with the PRISMA checklist.
UNASSIGNED: 97 studies were returned by the search. 62 studies proceeded to data extraction. The mean percentage of applicable PRISMA items that were met across all studies was 72.5% (range 28.6-96.2%). The area of poorest compliance was with the declaration of a study protocol (19.4% of studies). Only 37.1% of studies declared their source of funding.
CONCLUSIONS: Compliance of systematic review articles within craniofacial surgery with areas of the PRISMA checklist could be improved.
摘要：
暂无翻译
