title: Discussion: the quality of systematic reviews in hand surgery: an analysis using AMSTAR.
authors.affiliation: Los Angeles, Calif.; and Ann Arbor, Mich. From the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Southern California, and the Department of Surgery, Section of Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan.
authors.forename: Lee
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Squitieri
authors.forename: Kevin C
authors.initials: KC
authors.lastname: Chung
mesh_terms: D006225:Hand / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D012196:Review Literature as Topic
references.citation: Druss BG, Marcus SC. Growth and decentralization of the medical literature: Implications for evidence-based medicine. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93:499–501.
references.citation: Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312:71–72.
references.citation: Chung KC, Ram AN. Evidence-based medicine: The fourth revolution in American medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:389–398.
references.citation: Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, Cook DJ, Doig C. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgery literature: A critical appraisal. Ann Surg. 2005;241:450–459.
references.citation: Simunovic N, Sprague S, Bhandari M. Methodological issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies in orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:87–94.
references.citation: Ioannidis JP, Cappelleri JC, Lau J. Issues in comparisons between meta-analyses and large trials. JAMA 1998;279:1089–1093.
references.citation: Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al.. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998;280:278–280.
references.citation: Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:450–455.
references.citation: Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al.. Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.
references.citation: Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:20.
references.citation: Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al.. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1013–1020.
references.citation: MacDonald SL, Canfield SE, Fesperman SF, Dahm P. Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008. J Urol. 2010;184:648–653.
references.citation: Dijkman BG, Abouali JA, Kooistra BW, et al.. Twenty years of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: Has quality kept up with quantity? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:48–57.
references.citation: Manchikanti L, Datta S, Smith HS, Hirsch JA. Evidence based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Pain Physician 2009;12:819–850.