Abstract
IntroductionSystematic reviews and meta-analyses are methodologically rigorous studies that are said to form the reference standard for summarising evidence to guide health care. Reporting quality of reviews is of critical importance in order to judge the quality and risk of bias in a review to ensure sound healthcare decisions are made. This is particularly important in the field of dermatology due to the growing number of systematic reviews and their key role in informing healthcare decision within dermatology. A contemporary and comprehensive review of the compliance of dermatology systematic reviews and meta-analyses with the PRISMA checklist, in the highest impact factor dermatology journals, has not yet been assessed. To our knowledge, our review represents the most extensive study assessing reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published within dermatology to date. Methods and analysisOur protocol is reported in line with the Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines. MEDLINE will be searched to look for systematic reviews and meta-analysis in selected years within the top four highest impact factor dermatology journals in 2017. Records and full texts will be screened independently by five researchers. Data will be extracted onto a standard data extraction database. A training session will take place to ensure accurate data extraction and scoring of studies with the PRISMA checklist. The data will be analysed and outcomes will be determined. Primary outcome will be the compliance of reviews with the PRISMA checklist.
Highlights
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are methodologically rigorous studies that are said to form the reference standard for summarising evidence to guide health care
To assess whether compliance of PRISMA guidelines improves over time and whether this correlates with mandatory enforcement of PRISMA reporting or appointment of a dedicated systematic review editor
To assess if there is an assessment of publication bias across systematic reviews as well as within its primary studies
Summary
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are methodologically rigorous studies that are said to form the reference standard for summarising evidence to guide health care. Reporting quality of reviews is of critical importance in order to judge the quality and risk of bias in a review to ensure sound healthcare decisions are made. A contemporary and comprehensive review of the compliance of dermatology systematic reviews and meta-analyses with the PRISMA checklist, in the highest impact factor dermatology journals, has not yet been assessed. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are methodologically rigorous studies that are said to form the reference standard for creating evidence in health care [1]. As of 2010 approximately 75 trials and 11 systematic reviews were published daily, with a plateau not yet reached [3] These figures are likely to have increased. Whilst reporting quality and study quality are not the same, a poorly reported study is of limited value since it is difficult
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
