• Pedro Henrique de Mattos Cavalcante, Rafael Leite Pacheco, Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca, Alex Sandro Moreira Fragoso de Oliveira, and Rachel Riera.
• Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
• J Eval Clin Pract. 2024 Sep 19.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SR) of randomized controlled trials on esthetics and reconstructive breast surgery.MethodsMeta-research study with a broad search strategy was developed to retrieve all relevant systematic reviews. We evaluated the methodological and reporting guidance adopted by these reviews and assessed their adequacy to items from AMSTAR-2 (methodological quality) and PRISMA 2020 (reporting quality). The protocol of this study was prospectively published in: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/ucpgd.ResultsAfter the selection process, 15 SR were included; eight (60%) referred the use of a methodological guide and five (33.3%) invertedly referred PRISMA as the methodological guide. Reporting guidelines were referred by none of the included systematic review. The median adequacy to PRISMA-2020 items was 42.9% (Q1 - 38.1%/Q3 - 95.2%) and to AMSTAR-2 items was 33.3% (Q1 - 23.3%/Q3 - 93.3%) which reflects overall low reporting and methodological quality of included SR. The overall confidence in the results using AMSTAR-2 framework was critically low in 73.3% of included SR. Although a small number of SR were included, a high correlation between the methodological and reporting quality was observed (Spearmean rho = 0.96, 95% bias-corrected confidence interval = 0.84 to 0.99).ConclusionMethodological and reposting quality of SR of randomized clinical trials on esthetic or reconstructive breast surgery is poor. Half of the authors referred to the use of valid guidance to plan and conduct their reviews and none of them referred the use of a guidance for reporting their results.© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

5 keywords...

hide…