Exploring the relationship between the number of systematic reviews and quality of evidence: an orthognathic surgery-based study.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the quality and quantity of systematic reviews (SRs) of orthognathic surgery, the most frequently published topic in maxillofacial surgery. STUDY DESIGN: We searched the PubMed database for SRs of orthognathic surgery with no restriction on the language of publication date. We assessed the certainty of evidence presented according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol and the Leiden Manifesto using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics, Pearson´s correlation test, and linear regression. RESULTS: Of the 171 SRs evaluated, approximately one fifth presented evidence with a high level of certainty. The number of orthognathic surgery SRs has been increasing, and many SRs were published after very similar topics had already been published. There is no relationship between the impact factor and the certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: An excessive number of SRs of orthognathic surgery are published, and many SRs are superfluous, simply reporting previous findings. Clinicians should not base treatment decisions solely on the evidence presented in SRs, and journal editors and reviewers should evaluate these SRs more critically, particularly when they address topics that have already been covered in the literature.