An assessment of the compliance of systematic review articles published in craniofacial surgery with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review

ContextSystematic review evidence is increasing within craniofacial surgery. Compliance with recognised reporting guidelines for systematic review evidence has not been assessed.ObjectiveTo assess the compliance of systematic reviews published in craniofacial journals with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting criteria.Data sources, search terms and study selectionThomson Reuters impact factor was used to identify three top craniofacial journals. A search for all systematic review articles published in these journals from 1st May 2010 to 30th April 2015 was conducted using MEDLINE PubMed.Data extractionTwo independent researchers assessed each study for inclusion and performed the data extraction. Data included the article reference information; the pathology and interventions examined and compliance of each review article with the PRISMA checklist.Data synthesis and results97 studies were returned by the search. 62 studies proceeded to data extraction. The mean percentage of applicable PRISMA items that were met across all studies was 72.5% (range 28.6-96.2%). The area of poorest compliance was with the declaration of a study protocol (19.4% of studies). Only 37.1% of studies declared their source of funding.ConclusionsCompliance of systematic review articles within craniofacial surgery with areas of the PRISMA checklist could be improved.