A Comprehensive Review Is Essential in Plastic Surgery

Systematic reviews are critical for determining the quality of research in a certain field. They apply rigorous scientific methodologies and consider all studies to reduce research bias.

Planning entails developing rigorous pre-specified processes and a PICO methodology (population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). It also requires careful study selection.

The most rigorous approach to gathering evidence is systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses. Nonetheless, the trustworthiness of primary research and the mechanism employed to pool data might increase their quality.

To examine the overall quality of SRs published in three renowned plastic surgery journals between July 2019 and July 2020, we used A Measuring Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews to critically appraise their reporting requirements (AMSTAR). We also looked at the elements that affect the underlying methodology of these reports.

There must be a more significant disparity in SR quality between plastic surgery and other surgical specialities. Improved education, awareness, and enforcement via journal submission processes may assist in addressing this.

Systematic reviews (SRs) use rigorous, repeatable methodologies and suggested standards to solve the inadequacies of conventional reviews. These are intended to remove sources of bias and guarantee a thorough examination of the current material.

SRs are critical for clinical practice and keeping surgeons updated on current standards of care and new technology. Its dependability and usefulness, however, might be jeopardized if they are not done and reported accurately.

As a result, the PRISMA criteria were used to perform this systematic review. Using relevant search keywords, articles were obtained from the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases, and only studies that matched the inclusion criteria were included.

The main goal was to assess the quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials published in the Journal of Plastic Surgery. Compliance with the CONSORT reporting standard was examined in 57 papers. Out of 23 things, the median score was 11.5. The most prevalent areas of poor compliance were intervention/comparator specifics, randomization implementation, and blinding.

Despite the growing relevance of patient safety in all health research, only a few studies consider plastic surgery patients' unique needs. These characteristics include the fact that they are primarily female, healthy, and youthful.

As a result, the authors undertook a systematic study in the Journal of Plastic Surgery to discover patient safety activities in this speciality. Between 2012 and 2018, 15 papers were retrieved from the MEDLINE and SCIELO databases.

The findings revealed that most SRs in this area might be better formulated. They often use spin, a reporting bias in which research findings are portrayed as exaggerating the benefits or understating the risks of therapies. This is often the reason for worry since it might lead to clinical recommendations needing to be supported by evidence.

A systematic review is a way of doing literature research that gathers and analyzes empirical information to address a particular research issue. A meta-analysis is another name for this sort of review.

A systematic review process may be complex, requiring careful preparation to explain the results obtained. To prevent bias, systematic reviews often address a specific research issue and adhere to stringent criteria.

The study's authors assessed 1820 papers that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Most included studies included cosmetic and breast surgery (27%) or craniofacial surgery (23%).