A Systematic Review’s Significance in Plastic Surgery
Systematic reviews are necessary for evaluating the quality of the research in a particular field. Considering all the studies, they reduce research bias using rigorous scientific methodologies.
A PICO methodology and robust pre-specified procedures are necessary for planning (population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). A thoughtful selection of research is also necessary.
The most accurate approach to compiling evidence is via systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses. Nonetheless, the validity of primary research and the technique for data pooling might enhance their quality.
We used A Measuring Tool to Evaluate Systematic Reviews to evaluate the reporting criteria of the SRs published in three renowned plastic surgery journals between July 2019 and July 2020 to gauge their overall quality (AMSTAR). We also looked at the variables that affect how these reports are produced.
The difference in SR quality between cosmetic surgery and other surgical specialities must be more pronounced. This might be improved with better instruction, increased awareness among all stakeholders, and enforcement via procedures for submitting journal articles.
Systematic reviews (SRs) make up for the flaws of conventional reviews by using exacting, repeatable procedures and advised criteria. They are made to guarantee the most thorough examination of the available literature while removing potential sources of bias.
SRs are crucial for clinical practice and ensuring that surgeons know current medical practices and cutting-edge technological advancements. Yet, if they are carried out and reported accurately, their credibility and applicability may be protected.
As a result, the PRISMA criteria were used to perform this systematic review. Using the correct search phrases, articles were pulled from the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases, and only those studies that matched the inclusion criteria were included.
The main goal was to evaluate the reporting level in RCTs published in the Journal of Plastic Surgery. The CONSORT reporting guideline compliance of 57 papers was evaluated. The average score across the 23 things was 11.5. Blinding, randomization implementation, and intervention/comparator details were the most often encountered issues with the lowest compliance rates.
A few studies on this topic consider the unique needs of patients undergoing plastic surgery, despite the fact that patient safety is becoming more important in all health research. These characteristics include the fact that they are often young, healthy women.
To find activities relevant to patient safety in this speciality, the authors consequently undertook a systematic study for publication in the Journal of Plastic Surgery. MEDLINE and SCIELO databases were used to search the literature between 2012 and 2018, yielding 15 publications.
The findings suggested that most SRs in this field may be more effectively constructed. They often use spin, a reporting bias in which the research findings are portrayed as either overstating the benefits of treatments or understating their adverse effects. This is often a reason for worry since it may lead to the data not supporting clinical recommendations.
A systematic review is a literature study that gathers and evaluates empirical data to respond to a research issue. This kind of analysis is sometimes referred to as a meta-review.
A systematic review’s methodology may be complicated, and it must be well thought out to support the results reached. Systematic reviews often respond to a well-defined research issue and adhere to rigid standards to reduce bias.
One thousand eight hundred twenty papers that satisfied the inclusion criteria were examined by the study’s authors. Most included research (27%) or craniofacial surgery (23%) dealt with cosmetic and breast surgery.
