ABSTRACT
There are few data in the literature evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in breast plastic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of SR in breast plastic surgery. This is a secondary, observational and analytical study. SR studies on breast plastic surgery, published until 2020, were included. The search for articles was performed in the CCTR, LILACS, MEDLINE and SCIELO databases. After selection and full reading of the studies, they were evaluated according to the AMSTAR-2 instrument. The search identified 810 references, among which 583 did not meet the eligibility criteria, and 227 studies were evaluated. The median publication time of the articles was 57.0 ± 59.0 months, the average impact factor was 0.65 citations per month, and the AMSTAR-2 score was 66.2 ± 32.3. Among the articles evaluated, 39.65% performed a meta-analysis, 52.42% used PRISMA, and most articles pointed out the need for further studies to answer their proposed question (92.95%). Articles that used PRISMA had shorter publication times (39.0 ± 34.0 months) and higher AMSTAR-2 scores (77.6 ± 17.7). An increase in the number of publications and a tendency to increase the AMSTAR-2 score and decrease the impact factor of the article were observed (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the quality of SR in breast plastic surgery has been improving over the years; however, improved methodology and the development of randomized clinical trials are still needed to serve as a basis for SR.Level of Evidence III This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
