Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Communication Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023 Oct;169(4):755-764. doi: 10.1002/ohn.321. Epub 2023 Mar 16.
To evaluate harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) of microvascular free flap (MFF) in head and neck reconstruction.
This cross-sectional analysis included searches from the following major databases from 2012 to June 1, 2022: MEDLINE (Pubmed and Ovid), Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
In a masked duplicate manner, screening was performed using Rayyan, and data were extracted using a pilot-tested Google form. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to appraise the methodological quality of reviews and the corrected covered area was calculated to detect primary study overlap across all reviews. Reviews were then grouped in pairs of 2, called dyads, and the corrected covered area was calculated again for each individual dyad. Dyads with high overlap (≥50%) were further investigated for the accuracy of harms reporting.
Our initial search yielded 268 records, with 50 SRs meeting the inclusion criteria. A total of 46 (92%) of the included reviews demonstrated 50% or more adherence to the items assessed in our harms checklist. Our corrected covered area tool revealed 0.6% primary study overlap across all reviews, and 1 dyad with high overlap (≥50%). No statistically significant relationship was observed between the completeness of harms reporting and reviews listing harms as a primary outcome, reviews reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or a review's AMSTAR rating.
This study identifies how harms reporting in SRs of MFF reconstruction of the head and neck can be improved and provides suggestions with the potential to mitigate the paucity in current literature.
评估头颈部微血管游离皮瓣（MFF）重建的系统评价（SR）中危害报告情况。
本横断面分析纳入了 2012 年至 2022 年 6 月 1 日从以下主要数据库进行的检索：MEDLINE（Pubmed 和 Ovid）、Embase、Epistemonikos 和 Cochrane 系统评价数据库。
采用 Rayyan 进行盲法重复筛选，并使用经过试验验证的 Google 表单提取数据。使用 MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2（AMSTAR-2）评估评价的方法学质量，并计算校正涵盖面积以检测所有评价中原始研究的重叠情况。然后将评价分为两两配对（称为对子），并再次为每个单独对子计算校正涵盖面积。对于重叠度高（≥50%）的对子，进一步调查危害报告的准确性。
我们的初始搜索产生了 268 条记录，其中有 50 篇 SR 符合纳入标准。纳入的 50 篇评价中，共有 46 篇（92%）对我们危害清单中的项目达到 50%或更高的依从性。我们的校正涵盖面积工具显示，所有评价之间的原始研究重叠度为 0.6%，有一对对子的重叠度较高（≥50%）。危害报告的完整性与将危害列为主要结局的评价、报告对系统评价和荟萃分析 Preferred Reporting Items 的依从性的评价、或评价的 AMSTAR 评分之间未观察到统计学上显著的关系。
本研究确定了如何改进头颈部 MFF 重建的 SR 中危害报告的情况，并提出了一些建议，这些建议有可能减轻当前文献中的不足。
