Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in mammoplasty: a meta-epidemiological study.

• Grant number: 22/10315-8
• Support Opportunities: Scholarships in Brazil - Scientific Initiation
• Start date: February 01, 2023
• End date: January 31, 2024
• Field of knowledge: Health Sciences - Medicine - Surgery
• Principal Investigator: Rachel Riera
• Grantee: Pedro Henrique de Mattos Cavalcante
• Host Institution: Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM). Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP). Campus São Paulo. São Paulo , SP, Brazil

Abstract

Currently, it is estimated that approximately 10 million procedures involving plastic surgery are performed in the world per year, of which 1.6 million correspond to mammoplasty techniques with implantation of prostheses [International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery].Various techniques and prosthetic materials have been developed and are available for use. Comparative studies to identify the most effective options and safety, with different indications, have also been published. A search of MEDLINE (via PubMed) using a specific strategy for clinical trials on mammoplasty showed that 421 references had been indexed in this database by 2011. This number more than doubled in the following ten years (881 references by 2021).To deal with the increasing number of primary studies, including clinical trials, systematic reviews have been carried out with the aim of mapping, critically evaluating and synthesizing the results of these studies, thus summarizing the best available evidence on a specific question to support decision making in health [Khan 2001].However, to fulfill their role of reliably informing health decision-making and identifying gaps in questions that still need answers, systematic reviews need to be planned, conducted and reported with methodological rigor, in a systematic and transparent way.Even with the existence of specific methodological guidance, critical evaluation and reporting tools, the low quality and redundancy of systematic reviews have remained [Martimbianco 2021]. The literature has shown that, for example, in the areas of interventions for carotid stenosis [Mendoza 2021], bariatric surgery [Storman 2020] and oncology [Siemens 2021], only 6%, 1% 3 12%, respectively, of systematic reviews have been developed using appropriate methodology. These limitations reduce the reliability and applicability of the review findings.It is essential that the authors have methodological expertise to properly plan a systematic review, that peer reviewers have in-depth knowledge of the stages of this type of synthesis, and that the editorial process is adequate.Thus, this meta-epidemiological study aims to assess the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on mammoplasty, identifying the main limitations for additional care to be adopted in future reviews.