Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34240051›Full record

ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2021

Evaluating the Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses About Breast Augmentation Using AMSTAR.

Morgan Yuan, Jeremy Wu, Ryan E Austin, Frank Lista, Jamil Ahmad

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Morgan YuanMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jeremy WuUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ryan E AustinMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1503-3967
Frank ListaDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jamil AhmadDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9767-7250

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast augmentation is one of the most commonly performed cosmetic surgeries worldwide. Therefore, it is imperative to have evidence with high methodological quality to guide clinical decision making.

objectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) focused on breast augmentation.

methodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was performed. SRs that have a particular focus on breast augmentation and were published in the top 15 plastic and reconstructive surgery journals were included. Quality assessment was performed using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Study characteristics were extracted including journal and impact factor, year of publication, country affiliation of the corresponding author, reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, number of citations, and number of studies included.

resultsAmong the 22 studies included for analysis, the mean AMSTAR score was moderate (5.55), with no SR achieving good quality (AMSTAR score of ≥9). There were no significant associations between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor, number of citations, year of publication, or number of included studies. Studies that reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines on average scored higher on the AMSTAR tool (

conclusionsThe methodological quality of reviews about breast augmentation was found to be moderate, with no significant increase in studies or quality over time. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines and increased appraisal of SRs about breast augmentation using methodological assessment tools would further strengthen methodological quality and confidence in study findings.

Identifiers

PMID34240051
PMCPMC8259036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.