title: The quality of systematic reviews in hand surgery: an analysis using AMSTAR.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Systematic reviews constitute the top of the "level-of-evidence pyramid." Despite their strengths, they have been found to be of varying quality, thus raising concerns about their validity and role in influencing clinical practice. In the present study, a quality analysis of systematic reviews with a focus on hand surgery was performed.
  
  
  METHODS
  A PubMed search was performed to identify all systematic reviews published up to and including December of 2011 in eight surgical journals. Two authors independently reviewed the literature and extracted data from included reviews. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Quality assessment was performed using AMSTAR.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The initial search retrieved 687 articles. After screening titles and abstracts, 635 articles were excluded. Full-text review of the remaining 52 articles resulted in further exclusion of 10 articles, leaving 42 systematic reviews for final analysis. A significant increase in the number of published systematic reviews over time was noted (p = 0.04), with the majority of systematic reviews being published in The Journal of Hand Surgery (n = 19) and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (n = 12). Although a significant improvement in the quality of systematic reviews was noted over time (p = 0.01), a median AMSTAR score of 7 indicated the bulk of reviews to be of fair to good quality.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The trend to publish more systematic reviews in hand surgery is paralleled by an increase in the quality of systematic reviews. Nonetheless, increased efforts are indicated to further improve the quality of systematic reviews in hand surgery.
authors.affiliation: Palo Alto, Calif. From the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center.
authors.forename: Arash
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Momeni
authors.forename: Gordon K
authors.initials: GK
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: John R
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Talley
mesh_terms: D006225:Hand / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D012196:Review Literature as Topic
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: Margaliot Z, Chung KC. Systematic reviews: A primer for plastic surgery research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:1834–1841.
references.citation: Sullivan D, Chung KC, Eaves FF III, Rohrich RJ. The level of evidence pyramid: Indicating levels of evidence in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery articles. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:311–314.
references.citation: Braga LH, Pemberton J, Demaria J, Lorenzo AJ. Methodological concerns and quality appraisal of contemporary systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric urology. J Urol. 2011;186:266–271.
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: Lundh A, Knijnenburg SL, Jørgensen AW, van Dalen EC, Kremer LC. Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology: A systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009;35:645–652.
references.citation: Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, et al.. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One 2007;2:e1350.
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: 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: Chung KC, Swanson JA, Schmitz D, Sullivan D, Rohrich RJ. Introducing evidence-based medicine to plastic and reconstructive surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:1385–1389.
references.citation: Ching S, Rockwell G, Thoma A, Antony MM. Clinical research in aesthetic surgery. Clin Plast Surg. 2008;35:269–273.
references.citation: Rohrich RJ, Eaves FF III. So you want to be an evidence-based plastic surgeon? A lifelong journey. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:467–472.
references.citation: Momeni A, Becker A, Antes G, et al.. Evidence-based plastic surgery: Controlled trials in three plastic surgical journals (1990 to 2005). Ann Plast Surg. 2009;62:293–296.
references.citation: Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:697–703.
references.citation: Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J, Dorgan M, Ramos-Remus C. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:476–487.
references.citation: Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, et al.. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 2008;3:e3081.