Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management.

摘要: The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. aim this study was to evaluate the in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE Cochrane Library through February 2016 for relevant using medical subject free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted evaluated 11-item A Measurement Tool Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool 27-item Preferred Reporting Items Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics associated with identified. Descriptive statistics linear regression features improved quality. total 60 met inclusion criteria. Six 11 AMSTAR items on 'a priori' design, duplicate selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias conflict interest reported less than 50% reviews. Of 27 listed PRISMA, 13 introduction, methods, results discussion addressed Multivariable analyses showed that higher incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA 6·3; 3·8, 8·7) published library 2·9; 1·6, 4·2; 6·1; 3·1, 9·2) included randomised control trial 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; 3·4; 0·9, 5·8). requires further improvement stricter adherence checklist tool.