Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review
Buket Gundogana✉, Naeem Dowlutb, Shivanchan Rajmohanc, Mimi Rosealie Borrellid, M.C. Millipb, Christos Iosifidise, Yagazie Zina Udeajaf, Ginimol Mathewg, Alexander James Fowlerh, Riaz Aghah
- aUniversity College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
- bOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom
- cLondon North West Healthcare NHS Trust, Middlesex, United Kingdom
- dDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
- eBarts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- fLuton and Dunstable University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Luton, United Kingdom
- gUniversity College London Medical School, Gower Street, London, United Kingdom
- hBart's Health NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- ✉Corresponding author
Papers open inside SciRah from the original publisher or repository; SciRah never hosts them.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is of critical importance in dermatology because of their key role in informing health care decisions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. METHODS: This review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Included studies were reviews published across 6 years in the top 4 highest-impact-factor dermatology journals of 2017. Records and full texts were screened independently. Data analysis was conducted with univariate multivariable linear regression. The primary outcome was to assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: = <.001). The worst reported checklist item was item 5 (reporting on protocol existence), with a compliance of 15% of articles. CONCLUSION: PRISMA compliance within leading dermatology journals could be improved; however, it is steadily improving.