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

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) of microvascular free flap (MFF) in head and neck reconstruction. DATA SOURCES: This 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 METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: Our 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. CONCLUSION: This 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.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

A cross-sectional analysis of 50 systematic reviews of microvascular free flap head and neck reconstruction (2012-June 2022) found 92% adhered to ≥50% of harms checklist items, with 0.6% primary-study overlap overall and only one dyad at high overlap (≥50%).

Explore how this research connects to clinical practice

More peer-reviewed studies in Clinical Literature.

• Leech Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis — The Landmark RCT — Michalsen et al. (2003)
• Leech-Assisted Flap Salvage — Systematic Review of 277 Cases — Whitaker et al. (2012)
• Effects of hirudotherapy on liver functions, lipid profile, and insulin sensitivity in rats with metabolic syndrome — Bilden A et al. (2026)
• Efficacy and Safety of Hirudotherapy for Improving Sperm Quality Parameters in Male Infertility: A Randomized Controlled Trial — Abtahi-Forooshani M et al. (2026)
• Reverse Sural Flap Venous Congestion Successfully Managed With Enoxaparin in a Male Patient With a Traumatic Foot Crush Injury: A Case Report — Velasco-Bustamante J et al. (2026)
• Investigation of the therapeutic effects of medicinal leech treatment on lower extremity ischemia-reperfusion injury — Ünal K et al. (2026)
• Efficacy of Medicinal Leech Therapy in Diverse Clinical Applications: A Comprehensive Study from Azerbaijan — Farzali S et al. (2025)
• HIRUDOTHERAPY IN RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY: CASE-REPORTS AND REVIEW — Heinz P et al. (2020)
• Hirudotherapy in Wound Healing — Nair H et al. (2022)
• Hirudotherapy for limb ischemia in the pediatric intensive care unit: A retrospective observational cohort — Resch J et al. (2022)

Browse all ASH-analysed research →