Evolution of reports of randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery

Veiga, Daniela Francescato; Veiga-Filho, Joel; Pellizzon, Rosely de Fátima; Juliano, Yára; Ferreira, Lydia Masako

doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2010.11.015

Cited by 12 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that 39% reported randomization technique, 15.5% performed a power analysis and 20% were not blinded. Velga et al 22 analysed 96 RCTs in plastic surgery published 2004e8 and found that 29% appropriately described allocation concealment, a percentage not significantly different than the 32% in our review (p Z 0.89 Yates corrected Chi square test).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: A systematic review

Agha

Camm

Edison

et al. 2013

Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: A systematic review

Agha

Camm

Edison

et al. 2013

Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…2,[4][5][6][7]38,39 However, some studies use comprehensive search strategies 7,8 and perform extensive assessments. 3 Most studies highlight poor quality of reporting and the need for higher quality randomized controlled trials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[6][7][8] Although many checklists and scales are based on items that are considered important in clinical trial dogma, they often address items not directly related to the internal validity of a trial.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials

Voineskos

Coroneos

Ziolkowski

et al. 2016

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article highlights methodological safeguards that plastic surgeons should consider when interpreting results of a surgical randomized controlled trial. Allocation concealment, outcome assessor blinding, and patient blinding were identified as areas of concern. Valid and reliable outcome measures are being used in plastic surgery. This analysis provides strong rationale for continued focus on the performance and reporting of clinical trials within our specialty.

show abstract

“…They found that only 39 % reported randomisation technique. In their analysis of 96 RCTs in plastic surgery published between 2004 and 2008, Veiga et al [29] found that 29 % appropriately described allocation concealment. Momeni et al [30] analysed 172 RCTs from three plastic surgical journals during 1990–2005 and found that only 12 % reported on their allocation concealment and 37 % described participant dropouts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Evolution of reports of randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery

Cited by 12 publications

References 35 publications

The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: A systematic review

The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: A systematic review

A Systematic Review of Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About