The most accessible, concise guide to dermatology-updated with new images and new chapters!This authoritative, evidence-based guide provides the information and insight you need to accurately assess ...and treat the most common skin disorders. Updated with new chapters and new content, this second edition reflects the latest findings and clinical protocols.Features:Cohesive three-section organization:o Section One reviews the principles of diagnosis and management as well as office-based procedureso Section Two covers common and critical dermatologic conditionso Section Three teaches the differential diagnosis of skin disease in specific body regions based on morphology and other clinical findingsLearning aids throughout the book include text boxes, concept-clarifying figures and photographs, and insightful clinical "Pearls" and "Pitfalls"Evidence-based reviews and international guidelinesIncludes free access to 13 videos with detailed demonstrations of common cutaneous diagnostic and surgical proceduresOnline bonus content via AccessDermatologyDxRx subscription with cases, PowerPoint lectures, and quizzes-ideal for students, residents, and faculty350+ photos and illustrations
Summary
Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered the gold‐standard for putting together evidence in healthcare. They serve clinicians and other stakeholders of the healthcare field, such as patients ...and policy makers, by summarizing the available data that we have on a medical subject, while highlighting the quality of the studies existing in the literature.
In literature from other medical specialties, the use of reporting guidelines, such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA), has been shown to increase transparency and reproducibility (the extent to which consistent results are obtained when an experiment is repeated).
To date, however, no studies have looked at how well dermatology SRs adhere to items from the PRISMA guideline, which is what the authors of this study, based in Canada, aimed to address. It is important that the methodology of systematic reviews is transparent and appropriately reported, so that readers have a clear understanding of what was done and why.
To do this, we reviewed all SRs published in the five dermatology journals with the highest impact factors from 2013 to 2017. We evaluated how well selected PRISMA items were reported and whether the adherence of reporting was associated with factors such as year of publication, protocol registration, and funding source.
We found that among SRs published in five dermatology journals from 2013‐17, all (136 of 136) had at least one inadequately reported PRISMA item, while 93% (127 of 136) had at least one fully non‐reported item. Reporting improved over time and SRs that stated they used a pre‐registered protocol were associated with better reporting of the PRISMA items we assessed.
Several items remain commonly under‐reported in dermatology systematic reviews and we identified these in the hopes that it improves reporting going forward.
With the results from this study, we feel that authors, reviewers, journal editors and editorial committees should strive to encourage pre‐registration of SR protocols and better SR reporting.
This is a summary of the study: Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals
Linked Article: Croitoru et al. Br J Dermatol 2020; 182:1469–1476
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
