Revisiting Level of Evidence Ratings in Plastic Surgery: A Call to Action

Abstract

Background Evidence-based medicine (EBM) underpins medical and surgical practice, with Level of Evidence (LOE) being a key aspect that allows clinicians and researchers to better discriminate the methodological context by which studies are conducted to appropriately interpret their conclusions and more specifically, the strength of their recommendations. Objectives The aim of this study was to reassess the LOE of articles published in plastic surgery journals. Methods A review of the following plastic surgery journals: Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ), Annals of Plastic Surgery (Annals), Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (JRPAS), Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open (PRS GO) was performed to assess the overall LOE of publications from January 1 to December 31, 2021. Results From 3698 PUBMED articles, 1649 original articles and systematic reviews were analyzed. The average LOE for each journal was: ASJ 3.02 ± 0.94, Annals 3.49 ± 0.62, JPRAS 3.33 ± 0.77, PRS 2.91 ± 0.77, and PRS GO 3.45 ± 0.70. The collective average LOE was 3.28 ± 0.78. Only 4.4% were LOE I and 7.3% were LOE II. Compared to past studies, PRS showed a significant LOE improvement (p = 0.0254), while ASJ and JPRAS saw non-significant changes; Annals experienced a significant decrease (p = 0.0092). Conclusions ASJ and PRS showed the highest LOE among the journals analyzed. Despite this, low LOE studies remain prevalent in plastic surgery. This paper serves as a call to action for both researchers and academic journals to elevate the standard, offering several strategies to help improve the LOE in plastic surgery.