Harms Reporting in Systematic Reviews of the Microvascular Free Flap in Head and Neck Reconstruction.
Review published in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (2023)
Abstract
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.
Resumen
To evaluate harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) of microvascular free flap (MFF) in head and neck reconstruction. 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...
Por qué esto importa para la hirudoterapia
This cross-sectional analysis evaluated harms reporting quality in 50 systematic reviews of microvascular free flap reconstruction in head and neck surgery, finding that 92% demonstrated 50% or greater adherence to a harms-reporting checklist, with 0.6% primary study overlap across reviews. The study provides suggestions for improving harms reporting in this literature. This article has no defensible relevance to hirudotherapy or the leech secretome; it is a methodological assessment of how complications are reported in free flap systematic reviews and does not involve leeches, leech-derived compounds, or anticoagulation strategies pertinent to ASH's domain.
Citación
Harms Reporting in Systematic Reviews of the Microvascular Free Flap in Head and Neck Reconstruction.
Wilson et al. · Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2023
Contexto clínico relacionado
Explore cómo esta investigación se conecta con la práctica clínica
Añadido a la biblioteca ASH: May 28, 2026 · Última actualización del sitio: June 18, 2026