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

Clicks: 15
ID: 327408
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #85 of 125 articles by views in Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 125 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
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.
Reference Key
openalex_W7134222449 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Elisa Bertulla, Edoardo Raposio
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/asjof/ojag162
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojag162
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.