Harms Reporting in Systematic Reviews of the Microvascular Free Flap in Head and Neck Reconstruction

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) of microvascular free flap (MFF) in head and neck reconstruction.Data SourcesThis cross‐sectional analysis included searches from the following major databases from 2012 to June 1, 2022: MEDLINE (Pubmed and Ovid), Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Review MethodsIn a masked duplicate manner, screening was performed using Rayyan, and data were extracted using a pilot‐tested Google form. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews‐2 (AMSTAR‐2) was used to appraise the methodological quality of reviews and the corrected covered area was calculated to detect primary study overlap across all reviews. Reviews were then grouped in pairs of 2, called dyads, and the corrected covered area was calculated again for each individual dyad. Dyads with high overlap (≥50%) were further investigated for the accuracy of harms reporting.ResultsOur initial search yielded 268 records, with 50 SRs meeting the inclusion criteria. A total of 46 (92%) of the included reviews demonstrated 50% or more adherence to the items assessed in our harms checklist. Our corrected covered area tool revealed 0.6% primary study overlap across all reviews, and 1 dyad with high overlap (≥50%). No statistically significant relationship was observed between the completeness of harms reporting and reviews listing harms as a primary outcome, reviews reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses, or a review's AMSTAR rating.ConclusionThis study identifies how harms reporting in SRs of MFF reconstruction of the head and neck can be improved and provides suggestions with the potential to mitigate the paucity in current literature.