[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 158
Citations 0
Invited Commentary
Mar/Apr 2016

Optimizing Quality of Systematic Reviews in Plastic Surgery With the PRISMA Checklist

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2016;18(2):106-107. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2015.1964

In this issue of JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, Lee et al1 describe adherence to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist for systematic reviews reported in plastic surgery. This study is timely because the number of systematic reviews in the facial plastic surgery literature continues to increase. A systematic review is based on a clearly formatted question, identifies relevant studies, appraises the quality of the studies, and summarizes the evidence by use of explicit methods.2 The methodological and explicit nature of systematic reviews distinguishes them from other reviews by virtue of their a priori research protocol, specific search question, explicit research plan, and synthesis of existing data.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview