Objectives: To systematically analyze the use of evidence assessment tools in systematic reviews of management and education. Study design and setting: We systematically searched selected literature databases and websites to identify systematic reviews on management and education. We extracted general information of the included studies and information about the evidence assessment tool they applied, including whether it was used for methodological quality assessment, reporting quality assessment or evidence grading, as well as the name, reference, publication year, version and original intended use of the tool, the role of the tool in the systematic review, and whether the quality determination criteria were given. Results: A total of 299 systematic reviews were included, of which only 34.8% used evidence assessment tools. A total of 66 different evidence assessment tools were used, of which Risk of Bias (ROB) and its updated version (n = 16, 15.4%) were the most frequent. The specific roles of the evidence assessment tools were reported clearly in 57 reviews, and 27 reviews used two tools. Conclusion: Evidence assessment tools were seldom used in systematic reviews in social sciences. The understanding and reporting of evidence assessment tools among the researchers and users still needs improvement.

Quality of life (QoL) is an important consideration in the management of head and neck cancers (HNC). We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the impact of curative surgical re (+/- adjuvant therapy) of HNC on QoL. Eligible studies (participants>age 18 years, reported fully in English, and prospectively assessed QoL) were filtered using quality criteria, and classified according to the added value, using a published taxonomy. MEDLINE and EMBASE searching yielded 302 distinct reports, 49 met eligibility, and 26 met quality criteria. Among the eligible studies, achievement of certain quality criteria was poor: a priori hypothesis (8%), statistical accounting of missing data (8%), reporting of assessment interval (35%) and rationale for chosen measure (53%). The most frequent ways QoL added value were: understanding of treatment benefit and risk (100%), comparing treatments for QoL effect (92%) and advancing QoL research methodology (50%). QoL (physical/social functioning and various symptom domains) deteriorated with treatment, gradually recovering to baseline (cancer diagnosis) level. Swallowing, chewing, saliva, taste, eating disruption, and aesthetic deficits may persist. Advanced tumors, extensive surgical resection, need for flap reconstruction, neck dissection, and postoperative radiation are associated with worse QoL outcomes. Knowledge of these trends can be applied in shared decision making, identification of commonly faced QoL issues, and to develop and provide survivorship resources. Future research should focus on routinely incorporating QoL in randomized studies, reporting the result according to guidelines, and following knowledge translation principles to maximize the clinician's and patient's ability to use QoL data.