Quality issues identified in systematic reviews on platelet‐rich plasma therapy for pattern hair loss—A method study

Abstract

Background Systematic reviews of healthcare interventions aim to evaluate the quality of clinical studies, but they might have quality issues in their own right. Objective We aimed to evaluate methodological inconsistencies in systematic reviews. Methods We searched the database MEDLINE and included systematic reviews and/or meta‐analyses on platelet‐rich plasma therapy for pattern hair loss. Results We identified 15 relevant systematic reviews and/or meta‐analyses, and we identified various overt methodological inconsistencies in five of those systematic reviews. These inconsistencies concerned including duplicate data, mixing data from various study designs, misclassifying study designs and treatment comparisons, misinterpreting heterogeneity, and mistaking reporting standards. Conclusion The identification of various inconsistencies in previous systematic reviews on platelet‐rich plasma therapy for pattern hair loss should prompt future authors to consult the Cochrane Handbook and to implement the PRISMA statement.