Quality and Reporting Completeness of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Dermatology

We sought to assess the quality of dermatological systematic reviews (SRs) and identify factors that predict high methodological quality. We searched for all SRs published in 2017 using PubMed, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of SRs. We included studies identified as SRs or meta-analysis in the title or abstract and dealing with a dermatological topic. Study selection and data extraction were carried out and Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses and rating by A MeaSurement Tool to Assess SRs 2 were used independently by two authors. On the basis of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess SRs 2, confidence in SRs results was classified as high, moderate, low, or very low. We included 732 studies. We described a random sample of 140. The overall rating of confidence in the results according to a tool called A MeaSurement Tool to Assess SRs 2 was high or moderate for nine reviews (6%). A total of 20 reviews (15%) had a registered protocol. Independent factors associated with moderate or high rating of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess SRs 2 were publication in a journal where Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses was mandatory (OR [95% confidence interval] = 27.0 [1.4-528]) and journal impact factor (OR of 1.9 [1.3-3]) for each increase in one more point. The observation that 90% of published dermatology SRs are of very low quality is alarming. Review registration in the International Prospective Register of SRs and full reporting according to Preferred Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses should be mandatory for publication. This study is registered in the International Prospective Register of SRs (CRD42018093856).

Automated summary

This study aimed to assess the quality of dermatological systematic reviews published in 2017, finding that 90% were rated as very low quality. Recommendations for improving review quality included registration in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and full reporting according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Reviews with registered protocols and publication in journals mandating reporting guidelines had higher methodological quality ratings.