ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2019
Reading between the Lines: A Plastic Surgeon's Guide to Evaluating the Quality of Evidence in Research Publications.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The development of QERM scoring system for comprehensive assessment of the Quality of Empirical Research in Medicine - Part 1.Journal of postgraduate medicinePooled it
- The use of injectable orthobiologics for knee osteoarthritis: A formal ESSKA-ORBIT consensus. Part 2-Cell-based therapy.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Article
- The Need for Higher Levels of Evidence in Plastic Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- The Impact of Senior Author Profile on Publication Level of Evidence inPlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An important component of practicing evidence-based medicine (EBM) in plastic surgery is staying current with published research, an increasingly difficult task given the rapid growth of the literature. This article reviews the methodological aspects specific to the aesthetic surgery field that should be considered when evaluating the quality of evidence in research publications in the context of the level of evidence (LOE) grading scales that are currently used by plastic surgery journals. Reporting the LOE in a research publication can help to highlight the quality of the research and the potential for bias so that the reader may prioritize information accordingly. However, LOE classifications are not an absolute index of the quality of evidence and do not preclude careful evaluation of the study's methods and results in the context of the authors' conclusions. As the application of evidence-based medicine expands in the plastic surgery community, surgeons must be mindful of how to appropriately interpret research findings and assess the utility of applying results to their practice.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.