ArticleInternational journal of surgery protocols2018
Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review protocol.
Article in International journal of surgery protocols, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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 ANALYSIS: Our 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.