Background: There has been an increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology over the past decade, however the quality of these studies is unknown.
Objectives: To determine the change in the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology over the past decade.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology published in the 10 highest ranked dermatology journals in 2010 and 2019. Included studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CDSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CCA, CCRCT, CMR, HTA, and NHS EED. Methodological quality was assessed in duplicate by two independent investigators with the ROBIS tool and, for studies of interventions, the AMSTAR-2 tools. Reporting quality was assessed with the PRISMA 2009 and PRISMA-A 2013 statements.
Results: We identified 27 systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2010 and 127 published in 2019. There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses at high/unclear risk of bias with ROBIS (Fisher’s exact test = 1.00) or with critically low methodological quality using AMSTAR-2 (Fisher’s exact test = 0.456), between 2010 and 2019. The difference in proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses at high/unclear overall risk of bias with ROBIS was -1.2% (95% CI -17.3%-14.9%) in 2010 (81.4%) than 2019 (82.6%) (Figures 1-2). There was evidence of a difference in proportion of PRISMA (t(26)=2.7, p=0.01), and very strong evidence of a difference in proportion of PRISMA-A (t(26)=4.2, p<0.001) checklist items adequately reported between 2010 and 2019. The difference in mean proportion of PRISMA checklist items adequately reported was 3.6 items more (95% CI 1.8 – 5.4 items more) in 2019 (mean=10.7 items, SD=2.4 items) than 2010 (mean=7.1 items, SD=2.9 items), and of PRISMA-A checklist items adequately reported was 1.1 items more (95% CI 0.2–2.0 items more) in 2019 (mean=5.6 items, SD=1.5 items) than 2010 (mean=4.4 items, SD=1.7 items)
Conclusions: There was no improvement in the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology between 2010 and 2019, but strong evidence of an improvement in the reporting quality.
Patient, public and/or healthcare consumer involvement: None.