Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews on Gluteal Augmentation Using a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2)

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

Abstract Background Gluteal augmentation has become increasingly popular in aesthetic surgery, with fat grafting, implants, and fillers as the main techniques. Objectives This study aims to assess the methodological rigor of available reviews using AMSTAR-2 and to explore associations with publication characteristics, including citations, journal impact factor, year of publication, and PRISMA adherence. Methods A systematic literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was performed. Two authors independently screened studies and extracted data. Methodological quality was assessed with AMSTAR-2. Correlations between AMSTAR scores and publication features were evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation, and differences by PRISMA adherence were tested with the Mann–Whitney U test. Interrater reliability was assessed with Cohen’s kappa. Results Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Most focused on safety and complication rates of fat grafting versus implants. According to AMSTAR-2, 11 reviews were rated “Critically Low” and 2 “Low”. Spearman correlations indicated a moderate positive association between AMSTAR score and year of publication (r = 0.46) and a weak-to-moderate association with the number of included studies (r = 0.39). No significant associations were observed with journal impact factor or citation count. PRISMA adherence was reported in 69% of reviews but did not significantly affect AMSTAR scores (p = 0.536). Conclusions Although systematic reviews on gluteal augmentation are increasing, their methodological quality remains largely low. Future reviews should implement prospectively registered protocols, comprehensive search strategies, and rigorous risk-of-bias assessment to provide reliable guidance for clinical practice.