Information about the 2019 Novel Coronavirus
Despite substantial advances in the management of craniofacial trauma, numerous clinical questions remain. These are increasingly being answered using systematic reviews (SRs). However, caution is warranted as their validity and role in influencing clinical practice has been called into question.A PubMed search was performed in October 2014 to identify SRs published up to and including September 2014 in 35 scientific journals. Two authors independently reviewed the literature and extracted data from included studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) was used to determine the quality of SRs.The initial search retrieved 3080 articles of which 3051 articles were excluded after screening title and abstract. After full-text review of the remaining 29 articles, 3 additional articles were excluded, thus, leaving 26 SRs for final analysis. Regression analysis demonstrated that the overall number of published SRs increased significantly throughout the period analyzed (P = 0.022). The median AMSTAR score of all SRs was 4.5, consistent with a "poor-to-fair" quality. The interobserver agreement was high, as evidenced by a mean ? of 0.91. Although there appeared to be a trend toward an increase in AMSTAR score by year over the period analyzed, this failed to reach statistical significance in terms of median (P = 0.36) or absolute (P = 0.26) counts.A tremendous opportunity exists for improvements in the quality of SRs focusing on craniofacial trauma. In addition to familiarizing authors with quality criteria for SRs, adoption of strict reporting criteria by scientific journals may result in long-term improvements in the quality of reporting.
View details for DOI 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000633
View details for PubMedID 26418794