{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: An assessment of the compliance of systematic review articles published in craniofacial surgery with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review.
{Author}: Pidgeon TE;Wellstead G;Sagoo H;Jafree DJ;Fowler AJ;Agha RA;
{Journal}: J Craniomaxillofac Surg
{Volume}: 44
{Issue}: 10
{Year}: Oct 2016
{Factor}: 3.192
{DOI}: 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.018
{Abstract}: <B>BACKGROUND: </B>Systematic review evidence is increasing within craniofacial surgery. Compliance with recognised reporting guidelines for systematic review evidence has not been assessed.<BR><B>OBJECTIVE: </B>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.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>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.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>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.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>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.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Compliance of systematic review articles within craniofacial surgery with areas of the PRISMA checklist could be improved.