Appraising the methodological quality of systematic reviews in biomaterials journals using the AMSTAR tool

Abstract

Abstract Background Evidence-based biomaterials research as represented by systematic reviews (SRs) has gained attentions. However, the methodological quality of such SRs varies which may cause issues for future research. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of SRs published in high-impact biomaterials specialty journals. Methods PubMed was used to search SRs published in identified high-impact biomaterials specialty journals (Journal impact factor greater than 4.0, based on 2021 Thomson Institute of Science Information ranking) until 27 July 2022. General review characteristics were extracted. The methodological quality of SRs was analyzed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and the maximum score is 11. we conducted a descriptive analysis to summary the data of general review characteristics and AMSTAR scores. Results A total of 165 SRs published in 20 different journals were included. 90.3% of the SRs were published after 2014. The methodological quality of included SRs was highly variable with scores ranged from 0 to 9. The overall methodological quality of included SRs was poor, and the mean score was 3.73 (SD = 1.89). In addition, the adherence of SRs to AMSTAR items was poor: 9 out of the 11 items had a compliance rate of less than 50.0%. Conclusions Based on the results of this research, it is clear that SRs published in high-impact biomaterials specialty journals tend to have a poor and inconsistent level of scientific quality. Referring to a priori design, guaranteeing a thorough literature search and reasonable inclusion, evaluating the scientific quality of the articles included, and incorporating such evaluation into the discussion of synthesis findings and the formulation of conclusions are all areas that might benefit from further improvements.