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

被引：66

作者：

Agha R.A. ^{[1
]}

Camm C.F. ^{[2
]}

Doganay E. ^{[3
]}

Edison E. ^{[4
]}

Siddiqui M.R.S. ^{[5
]}

Orgill D.P. ^{[6
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Plastic Surgery, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury, Bucks

[2] Department of Trauma, Emergency, and Acute Medicine, King's College Hospital, London

[3] Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton

[4] Department of Clinical Medicine, University College London, London

[5] Department of Surgery, Epsom and St Heliers Hospital, Surrey

[6] Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

来源：

European Journal of Plastic Surgery | 2014年 / 37卷 / 2期

关键词：

Consort; Levels of evidence; Randomised controlled trials; Reporting quality; Research methodology;

D O I：

10.1007/s00238-013-0893-5

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: We 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. Methods: MEDLINE® 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. Results: Fifty-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. Conclusions: The 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. © 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

引用

页码：55 / 62

页数：7

共 40 条

[11]

Linde K., Jonas W.B., Melchart D., Willich S., The methodological quality of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture, Int J Epidemiol, 30, 3, pp. 526-531, (2001)

[12]

Montori V.M., Wang Y.G., Alonso-Coello P., Bhagra S., Systematic evaluation of the quality of randomised controlled trials in diabetes, Diabetes Care, 29, 8, pp. 1833-1838, (2006)

[13]

Begg C., Cho M., Eastwood S., Horton R., Moher D., Olkin I., Pitkin R., Rennie D., Schulz K.F., Simel D., Stroup D.F., Improving the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials.The CONSORT statement, JAMA, 276, 8, pp. 637-639, (1996)

[14]

Boutron I., Moher D., Altman D.G., Schulz K.F., Ravaud P., Methods and processes of the CONSORT Group: Example of an extension for trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments, Ann Intern Med, 148, (2008)

[15]

Agha R.A., Camm C.F., Edison E., Orgill D.P., The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: A systematic review, J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, 66, 4, pp. 447-452, (2013)

[16]

Dechartres A., Charles P., Hopewell S., Ravaud P., Altman D.G., Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessed, J Clin Epidemiol, 64, 2, pp. 136-144, (2011)

[17]

Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement, Int J Surg, 8, 5, pp. 336-341, (2010)

[18]

Rhee J.S., Daramola O.O., No need to fear evidence-based medicine, Arch Facial Plast Surg, 14, 2, pp. 89-92, (2012)

[19]

Rohrich R.J., So you want to be better: The role of evidence-based medicine in plastic surgery, Plast Reconstr Surg, 126, 4, pp. 1395-1398, (2010)

[20]

Agha R., Cooper D., Muir G., The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: A systematic review, Int J Surg, 5, 6, pp. 413-422, (2007)

← 1 2 3 4 →