• Dana I Anderson, Erin M Fordyce, and Sebastian Q Vrouwe.
• Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
• Burns. 2022 Dec 1; 48 (8): 182518351825-1835.

IntroductionBurn care is a relatively small, mutidisciplinary field with variability in practices between centers. Given these factors, survey studies are frequently used to better understand practice variations, establish guidelines, and direct future research. If survey research is poorly designed or reported, it limits the ability to form meaningful conclusions. This study evaluates the quality of survey studies published in burn care and determines areas of improvement to increase generalizability.MethodsA systematic review was performed by two independent reviewers. Three databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were queried between January 1, 2000 and March 19, 2020. Studies were included if they surveyed any member of the multidisciplinary burn team on a topic related to burn care, and surveys of non-clinicians were excluded. Data related to survey content, methodology, and quality was extracted for analysis.ResultsOf 247 citations, 144 met inclusion criteria. The number of published surveys increased by an average of 23% annually over the study period (p < 0.001). Studies represented a breadth of countries, scopes, themes, and disciplines. Few studies reported using reminders or incentives. The majority did not report survey development steps or validity/reliability, and half did not include the questionnaire in the publication. The median (IQR) response rate of all studies was 54% (32-83). A subgroup analysis of surveys to North American burn directors (N = 28) had a response rate of 40% (26-50).ConclusionSurvey reporting in the burn care literature is generally inconsistent, limiting the ability to apply this research into practice.Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd and International Society of Burns Injuries. All rights reserved.

9 keywords...

hide…