Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24707112›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of plastic surgery2014

Randomised controlled trials in plastic surgery: a systematic review of reporting quality.

Riaz Ahmed Agha, Christian F Camm, Emre Doganay, Eric Edison, Muhammed R S Siddiqui, Dennis P Orgill

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of plastic surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Reporting quality of surgical randomised controlled trials in head and neck cancer: a systematic review.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Ethical Principles in Plastic Surgery Research.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology: review of adherence to the CONSORT statement.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2018
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Advancing research by publishing research protocols and negative studies.International journal of surgery protocols · 2016
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Riaz Ahmed AghaDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury, Bucks UK.
Christian F CammDepartment of Trauma, Emergency, and Acute Medicine, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
Emre DoganayDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Eric EdisonDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Muhammed R S SiddiquiDepartment of Surgery, Epsom and St Heliers Hospital, Surrey, UK.
Dennis P OrgillDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe recently conducted a systematic review of the methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in plastic surgery. In accordance with convention, we are here separately reporting a systematic review of the reporting quality of the same RCTs.

methodsMEDLINE® and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched by an information specialist from 1 January 2009 to 30 June 2011 for the MESH heading 'Surgery, Plastic'. Limitations were entered for English language, human studies and randomised controlled trials. Manual searching for RCTs involving surgical techniques was performed within the results. Scoring of the eligible papers was performed against the 23-item CONSORT Statement checklist. Independent secondary scoring was then performed and discrepancies resolved through consensus.

resultsFifty-seven papers met the inclusion criteria. The median CONSORT score was 11.5 out of 23 items (range 5.3-21.0). Items where compliance was poorest included intervention/comparator details (7 %), randomisation implementation (11 %) and blinding (26 %). Journal 2010 impact factor or number of authors did not significantly correlate with CONSORT score (Spearman rho = 0.25 and 0.12, respectively). Only 61 % declared conflicts of interest, 75 % permission from an ethics review committee, 47 % declared sources of funding and 16 % stated a trial registry number. There was no correlation between the volume of RCTs performed in a particular country and reporting quality.

conclusionsThe reporting quality of RCTs in plastic surgery needs improvement. Better education, awareness amongst all stakeholders and hard-wiring compliance through electronic journal submission systems could be the way forward. We call for the international plastic surgical community to work together on these long-standing problems.

Indexed as

ConsortLevels of evidenceRandomised controlled trialsReporting qualityResearch methodology

Identifiers

PMID24707112
PMCPMC3971436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.