Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery: a 20-year review of reporting standards, methodologic quality, and impact

Diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains controversial. This systematic review details the evidence and current best practices for the evaluation and management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in adults and children.

METHODS

Eight questions regarding the diagnosis and management of appendicitis were formulated. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov/NLM were queried for articles published from 2010 to 2022 with key words related to at least one question. Randomized and non-randomized studies were included. Two reviewers screened each publication for eligibility and then extracted data from eligible studies. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on all quantitative data. The quality of randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 or Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively.

RESULTS

2792 studies were screened and 261 were included. Most had a high risk of bias. Computerized tomography scan yielded the highest sensitivity (> 80%) and specificity (> 93%) in the adult population, although high variability existed. In adults with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management resulted in higher odds of readmission (OR 6.10) and need for operation (OR 20.09), but less time to return to work/school (SMD - 1.78). In pediatric patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management also resulted in higher odds of need for operation (OR 38.31). In adult patients with complicated appendicitis, there were higher odds of need for operation following antibiotic treatment only (OR 29.00), while pediatric patients had higher odds of abscess formation (OR 2.23). In pediatric patients undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, higher risk of reoperation at any time point was observed in patients who had drains placed at the time of operation (RR 2.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains nuanced. A personalized approach and appropriate patient selection remain key to treatment success. Further research on controversies in treatment would be useful for optimal management.

The Top 100 Cited Articles in the Microsurgical Treatment for Lymphedema

BACKGROUND

 Evidence-based medicine uses the current best evidence for decisions about patient care. Lymphedema is a chronic debilitating medical condition caused by a dysfunctional lymphatic system. This study analyzes the most cited articles, including the levels of evidence, for the surgical treatment of lymphedema.

METHODS

 The Web of Science Sci-Expanded Index was utilized to search for surgical treatment of lymphedema. Articles were examined by three independent reviewers and the top 100 articles were determined. The corresponding author, citation count, publication year, topic, study design, level of evidence, journal, country, and institution were analyzed.

RESULTS

 Since 1970, the top 100 articles have been cited 7,300 times. The average citation count was 68 and standard deviation was 55. The majority was case series (71), followed by retrospective cohort (8), prospective cohort (7), retrospective case-control (5), and randomized controlled trials (2). Based on the "Level of Evidence Pyramid," 71 articles were level IV, 13 articles were level III, and 9 articles were level II. On the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Scale, there were 71 articles with "very low," 20 articles with "low," and 2 articles with "moderate" quality of evidence.

CONCLUSION

 The top 100 cited articles were mostly case series and lacked high levels of evidence. Most studies are retrospective case series with short-term outcomes. However, low level evidence for new surgical procedures is to be expected. Current trends suggest the treatment and understanding of lymphedema will continue to improve.

"Spin" in Observational Studies in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is widely used in autologous breast reconstruction. However, the technique relies heavily on nonrandomized observational research, which has been found to have high risk of bias. "Spin" can be used to inappropriately present study findings to exaggerate benefits or minimize harms. The primary objective was to assess the prevalence of spin in nonrandomized observational studies on DIEP reconstruction. The secondary objectives were to determine the prevalence of each spin category and strategy.

Methods

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from January 1, 2015, to November 15, 2022. Spin was assessed in abstracts and full-texts of included studies according to criteria proposed by Lazarus et al.

Results

There were 77 studies included for review. The overall prevalence of spin was 87.0%. Studies used a median of two spin strategies (interquartile range: 1-3). The most common strategies identified were causal language or claims (n = 41/77, 53.2%), inadequate extrapolation to larger population, intervention, or outcome (n = 27/77, 35.1%), inadequate implication for clinical practice (n = 25/77, 32.5%), use of linguistic spin (n = 22/77, 28.6%), and no consideration of the limitations (n = 21/77, 27.3%). There were no significant associations between selected study characteristics and the presence of spin.

Conclusions

The prevalence of spin is high in nonrandomized observational studies on DIEP reconstruction. Causal language or claims are the most common strategy. Investigators, reviewers, and readers should familiarize themselves with spin strategies to avoid misinterpretation of research in DIEP reconstruction.

Surgical treatment of GERD: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has a high worldwide prevalence in adults and children. There is uncertainty regarding medical versus surgical therapy and different surgical techniques. This review assessed outcomes of antireflux surgery versus medical management of GERD in adults and children, robotic versus laparoscopic fundoplication, complete versus partial fundoplication, and minimal versus maximal dissection in pediatric patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (2004-2019) to identify randomized control and non-randomized comparative studies. Two independent reviewers screened for eligibility. Random effects meta-analysis was performed on comparative data. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

From 1473 records, 105 studies were included. Most had high or uncertain risk of bias. Analysis demonstrated that anti-reflux surgery was associated with superior short-term quality of life compared to PPI (Std mean difference =  - 0.51, 95%CI  - 0.63, - 0.40, I² = 0%) however short-term symptom control was not significantly superior (RR = 0.75, 95%CI 0.47, 1.21, I² = 82%). A proportion of patients undergoing operative treatment continue PPI treatment (28%). Robotic and laparoscopic fundoplication outcomes were similar. Compared to total fundoplication, partial fundoplication was associated with higher rates of prolonged PPI usage (RR = 2.06, 95%CI 1.08, 3.94, I² = 45%). There was no statistically significant difference for long-term symptom control (RR = 0.94, 95%CI 0.85, 1.04, I² = 53%) or long-term dysphagia (RR = 0.73, 95%CI 0.52, 1.02, I² = 0%). Ien, minimal dissection during fundoplication was associated with lower reoperation rates than maximal dissection (RR = 0.21, 95%CI 0.06, 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence regarding the optimal treatment of GERD often suffers from high risk of bias. Additional high-quality randomized control trials may further inform surgical decision making in the treatment of GERD.

Discrepancies between Registered and Published Primary and Secondary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials within the Plastic Surgery Literature: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have identified a high incidence of discrepancy between registered and published outcomes in registered medical and surgical randomized controlled trials. This has not yet been studied in the plastic surgery literature.

METHODS

The authors systematically assessed plastic surgery randomized controlled trials published between 2012 and 2016 in seven high-impact plastic surgery journals. Data were collected from the registration website and published articles using a standardized data extraction form.

RESULTS

A total of 145 randomized controlled trials were identified, with a 39 percent trial registration rate (n = 57). Forty-nine trials were included in the final analysis. Forty-three (88 percent) had a discrepancy between registered and published outcomes: 26 (53 percent) for primary outcome(s), and 39 (80 percent) for secondary outcome(s). The number of discrepancies in an individual trial ranged from one to seven for primary outcomes and one to 12 for secondary outcomes. Aesthetic surgery had the largest number of trials with outcome discrepancies (n = 15). The prevalence of unreported registered outcomes was 13 percent for primary outcomes and 38 percent for secondary outcomes. Registered nonsignificant primary outcomes were published as nonsignificant secondary outcomes in 30 percent of trials. Publishing new nonregistered secondary outcomes (65 percent) and changing the assessment timing of published primary outcomes (61 percent) were the most common types of discrepancies. Discrepancies favored a statistically significant positive outcome in 19 (44 percent) of the 43 trials with an outcome discrepancy. Discrepancies that resulted in published outcomes with improved patient relevance were found in eight trials (16 percent) for primary outcome discrepancies and 14 trials (29 percent) for secondary outcome discrepancies.

CONCLUSIONS

The plastic surgery literature has high rates of discrepancies between registered and published trial outcomes. Outcome reporting discrepancy is even more problematic for secondary outcomes, an area of analysis that has previously been poorly studied. The high rate of discrepancy change favoring a statistically significant outcome and more patient-relevant outcomes may indicate the pressure to demonstrate significant results to be accepted for publication in high-impact journals.

Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Published By Plastic Surgeons: Long-Term Follow-Up

INTRODUCTION

In two previous studies, the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with the participation of at least one plastic surgeon was evaluated in two periods: 1966-2003 and 2004-2008.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evolution of the quality of RCT publications by plastic surgeons in the subsequent 5-year period, from 2009 to 2013.

METHODS

RCTs published from 2009 to 2013 in English with the participation of at least one plastic surgeon were identified by electronic search and classified for concealment of allocation by two independent evaluators. The studies with adequate allocation concealment had their quality evaluated by two evaluators using the Delphi List and the Jadad Quality Scale.

RESULTS

Of the 6997 identified studies, 261 were classified as to concealment of allocation. Of these, 43 (16.47%) had adequate allocation concealment. According to the evaluation in the Delphi List, there was an improvement, in relation to 1966-2003, in the items "most important characteristics of the prognosis" (p < 0.001), "use of independent evaluator" (p = 0.0029), and "measures of variability and point estimate for the primary variable" (p = 0.0057); there was no difference in relation to 2004-2008. Regarding the Jadad Quality Scale, there was an increase in scores in relation to 1966-2003 (p < 0.0004) but not in relation to the 2004-2008 period.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in the quality of publications of RCTs by plastic surgeons in the period 2009-2013 compared to the previous 5 years (2004-2008), but both periods presented higher quality than the period 1966-2003.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials for Surgical Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard in evidence-based medicine. The authors conducted a systematic review to evaluate the quantity, quality, and trends of randomized controlled trials that assess surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.

METHODS

The authors identified randomized controlled trials comparing two or more surgical interventions for carpal tunnel syndrome in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Two independent reviewers evaluated articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed randomized controlled trial quality using the Jadad score.

RESULTS

Of 2253 identified studies, 58 met full inclusion criteria. They were published between 1985 and 2015, with a significant increase over time (p = 0.003). They were most frequently published in Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) [n = 15 (25.9 percent)]. Most randomized controlled trials were single-center studies [n = 54 (93.1 percent)] conducted in the United Kingdom [n = 13 (22.4 percent)] or the United States [n = 10 (17.2 percent)], with a mean study size of 80.1 ± 55.5 patients. Funding source was unknown in 62.1 percent (n = 36). Three-quarters [n = 44 (75.9 percent)] of randomized controlled trials did not define the primary outcome measure(s). Less than 30 percent (n = 17) of randomized controlled trials conducted a power analysis. Only four studies with patients reported lost to follow-up provided an explanation for each patient. Six randomized controlled trials (10.3 percent) conducted intention-to-treat analysis. The mean Jadad score was 2.14 ± 1.26, with no significant improvement over time (p = 0.245).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the significant increase in the number of randomized controlled trials published studying surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome over time, a mean Jadad score of 2.14 with no change over time indicates a need for improvement in quality. Proper study design is key to avoiding introduction of bias and ensuring the validity of conclusions drawn.

A Review of Randomized Controlled Trials in Cleft and Craniofacial Surgery

This study presents a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cleft and craniofacial surgery. All studies reporting on RCTs in cleft and craniofacial surgery were identified on PubMed using the search terms "cleft," "velopharyngeal insufficiency," "velopharyngeal dysfunction," "nasoalveolar molding," "gingivoperiosteoplasty," "Pierre Robin sequence," "craniofacial," "craniosynostosis," "craniofacial microsomia," "hemifacial microsomia," "hypertelorism," "Le Fort," "monobloc," "distraction osteogenesis," "Treacher Collins," and "Goldenhar." Studies were excluded if they were not randomized, did not focus primarily on topics related to cleft or craniofacial surgery, included repeat publications of data, or were unavailable in English. Studies were evaluated on demographic and bibliometric data, study size, specific area of focus, and findings reported. Four hundred forty-seven unique studies were identified. One hundred eighty-three papers met inclusion criteria (115 cleft lip and palate, 65 craniofacial, and 3 spanning both disciplines). Sixty-six (36%) were dedicated to topics related to surgical techniques. There were no studies comparing current cleft lip or soft palate repair techniques and no studies on cleft rhinoplasty. The most frequently reported surgical topic was cleft palate. There were several studies on orthognathic techniques which compared distraction osteogenesis to traditional advancement. Most craniofacial operations, such as cranial vault remodeling and frontofacial advancement/distraction, were not represented. Several standard operations in cleft and craniofacial surgery are not supported by Level I evidence from randomized controlled trials. Our community should consider methods by which more RCTs can be performed, or redefine the acceptable standards of evidence to guide our clinical decisions.

Randomized controlled trials and neurosurgery: the ideal fit or should alternative methodologies be considered?

OBJECTIVE

Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are advocated to provide high-level medical evidence. However, in neurosurgery, there are barriers to conducting RCTs. The authors of this study sought to analyze the quality of neurosurgical RCTs since 2000 to determine the adequacy of their design and reporting.

METHODS

A search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (2000-2014) was conducted. The medical subject heading (MeSH) terms used in the search included: "neurosurgery" OR "neurosurgical procedure," "brain neoplasms," "infarction" and "decompression," "carotid stenosis," "cerebral hemorrhage," and "spinal fusion." These studies were limited to RCTs, in humans, and in the English language. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) and Jadad scales were used to assess the quality of RCT design and reporting. The standardized median times cited (median citations divided by years since publication) were used to assess impact. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary-based scale was used to assess the design of the studies as primarily pragmatic or explanatory.

RESULTS

Sixty-one articles were identified, and the following subspecialties were the most common: vascular (23, 37%), followed by functional neurosurgery and neurooncology (both 13, 21%). The following nations were the primary leaders in RCTs: US (25 studies, 41%), Germany (8 studies, 13%), and the United Kingdom (7 studies, 11%). Median sample size was 100 (interquartile range [IQR] 41.5-279). The majority of the studies (40, 66%) had pragmatic objectives. The median number of times cited overall was 69 (IQR 20.5-193). The combined median CONSORT score was 36 (IQR 27.5-39). Blinding was most deficiently reported. Other areas with a relatively low quality of reporting were sample size calculation (34.2% of surgical, 38.5% of drug, and 20% of device studies), allocation concealment (28.9% of surgical, 23.1% of drug, and 50% of device studies), and protocol implementation (18.4% of surgical, 23% of drug, and 20% of device studies). The quality of reporting did not correlate with the study impact. All studies had a median Jadad score ≤ 3. Thirty-three pragmatic studies (83%) and 5 explanatory studies (25%) met the design objectives. All pragmatic studies based on drug and device trials met their objectives, while 74% of pragmatic surgical trials met their objectives.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of neurosurgical RCTs is low. The quality of RCT design and reporting in neurosurgery is also low. Many study designs are not compatible with stated objectives. Pragmatic studies were more likely to meet design objectives. Given the role of RCTs as one of the highest levels of evidence, it is critical to improve on their methodology and reporting.

Randomized controlled trials and neuro-oncology: should alternative designs be considered?

Deficiencies in design and reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) hinders interpretability and critical appraisal. The reporting quality of recent RCTs in neuro-oncology was analyzed to assess adequacy of design and reporting. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify non-surgical RCTs (years 2005-2014, inclusive). The CONSORT and Jadad scales were used to assess the quality of design/reporting. Studies published in 2005-2010 were compared as a cohort against studies published in 2011-2014, in terms of general characteristics and reporting quality. A PRECIS-based scale was used to designate studies on the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. Spearman's test was used to assess correlations. Regression analysis was used to assess associations. Overall 68 RCTs were identified. Studies were often chemotherapy-based (n = 41 studies) focusing upon high grade gliomas (46 %) and metastases (41 %) as the top pathologies. Multi-center trials (71 %) were frequent. The overall median CONSORT and Jadad scores were 34.5 (maximum 44) and 2 (maximum 5), respectively; these scores were similar in radiation and chemotherapy-based trials. Major areas of deficiency pertained to allocation concealment, implementation of methods, and blinding whereby less than 20 % of articles fulfilled all criteria. Description of intervention, random sequence generation, and the details regarding recruitment were also deficient; less than 50 % of studies fulfilled all criteria. Description of sample size calculations and blinding improved in later published cohorts. Journal impact factor was significantly associated with higher quality (p = 0.04). Large academic consortia, multi-center designs, ITT analysis, collaboration with biostatisticians, larger sample sizes, and studies with pragmatic objectives were more likely to achieve positive primary outcomes on univariate analysis; none of these variables were significant on multivariate analysis. Deficiencies in the quality of design/reporting of RCTs in neuro-oncology persist. Quality improvement is necessary. Consideration of alternative strategies should be considered.

Compliance of randomized controlled trials in trauma surgery with the CONSORT statement

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the criterion standard for assessing new interventions. However, bias can result from poor reporting, which also makes critical appraisal and systematic review challenging. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria for nonpharmacological trials published in 2008 provided a set of 23 mandatory items that should be reported in an RCT. This is the first study to assess the compliance of RCTs in trauma with the CONSORT criteria for nonpharmacological trials.

METHODS

The MEDLINE database was searched using the MeSH term wounds and injuries for English-language articles published between January 2009 and December 2011. Relevant articles were scored by two reviewers and compared against surrogate markers of article quality (such as journal impact factor).

RESULTS

Eighty-three articles were deemed suitable for inclusion. The mean CONSORT score was 11.2 of 23 items (49%; range, 3.38-18.17). Compliance was poorest for items relating to the adherence of care providers (0%), abstract (5%), and implementation of randomization (6%). Only 40% declared conflicts of interest, 73% declared permission from an ethics review committee, 43% declared sources of funding, and 10% stated a trial registry number. There was a significant correlation between the CONSORT score and the impact factor of the publishing journal (ρ = 0.37, p = 0.0006) but not for the number of patients or authors or single versus multicentre trials

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of RCTs in trauma surgery needs improvement. We suggest ways by which this could be improved including the following: better education, awareness, and a cohesive strategy among all stakeholders and the hard wiring of compliance through electronic journal submission systems.

Levels of Evidence in Cosmetic Surgery: Analysis and Recommendations Using a New CLEAR Classification

BACKGROUND

The Level of Evidence rating was introduced in 2011 to grade the quality of publications. This system evaluates study design but does not assess several other quality indicators. This study introduces a new "Cosmetic Level of Evidence And Recommendation" (CLEAR) classification that includes additional methodological criteria and compares this new classification with the existing system.

METHODS

All rated publications in the Cosmetic Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, July 2011 through June 2013, were evaluated. The published Level of Evidence rating (1-5) and criteria relevant to study design and methodology for each study were tabulated. A new CLEAR rating was assigned to each article, including a recommendation grade (A-D). The published Level of Evidence rating (1-5) was compared with the recommendation grade determined using the CLEAR classification.

RESULTS

Among the 87 cosmetic articles, 48 studies (55%) were designated as level 4. Three articles were assigned a level 1, but they contained deficiencies sufficient to undermine the conclusions. The correlation between the published Level of Evidence classification (1-5) and CLEAR Grade (A-D) was weak (ρ = 0.11, not significant). Only 41 studies (48%) evaluated consecutive patients or consecutive patients meeting inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The CLEAR classification considers methodological factors in evaluating study reliability. A prospective study among consecutive patients meeting eligibility criteria, with a reported inclusion rate, the use of contemporaneous controls when indicated, and consideration of confounders is a realistic goal. Such measures are likely to improve study quality.

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

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.

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals

BACKGROUND

An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published.

OBJECTIVES

To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive.

SELECTION CRITERIA

In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal's 'Instructions to Authors' to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR(®). One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10% random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus.For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors.   Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant. 'Allocation concealment' resulted in the largest effect, with risk ratio (RR) 1.81 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.61), suggesting that 81% more RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals adequately describe allocation concealment compared to those published in non-endorsing journals. Allocation concealment was reported adequately in 45% (393/876) of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsing journals and in 22% (329/1520) of RCTs in non-endorsing journals. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the 'Introduction' (RR 1.07, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.14); 'sample size' (RR 1.61, 99% CI 1.13 to 2.29); method used for 'sequence generation' (RR 1.59, 99% CI 1.38 to 1.84); and an aggregate score over reported CONSORT items, 'total sum score' (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68 (99% CI 0.38 to 0.98)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence has accumulated to suggest that the reporting of RCTs remains sub-optimal. This review updates a previous systematic review of eight evaluations. The findings of this review are similar to those from the original review and demonstrate that, despite the general inadequacies of reporting of RCTs, journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement may beneficially influence the completeness of reporting of trials published in medical journals. Future prospective studies are needed to explore the influence of the CONSORT Statement dependent on the extent of editorial policies to ensure adherence to CONSORT guidance.

Challenges of Randomized Controlled Trial Design in Plastic Surgery

Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard of evidence-based medicine. In the field of plastic surgery, designing these studies is much more challenging than in pharmaceutical medicine. Randomized trials in plastic surgery encompass several road blocks including problems shared with other surgical trials: equipoise, high cost, placebo issues and learning curves following the establishment of a novel approach. In addition, plastic surgery has more subjective outcomes, thus making study design even more difficult in assessing the end result.

A randomized controlled trial of skin care protocols for facial resurfacing: lessons learned from the Plastic Surgery Educational Foundation's Skin Products Assessment Research study

BACKGROUND

The Skin Products Assessment Research Committee was created by the Plastic Surgery Educational Foundation in 2006. The Skin Products Assessment Research study aims were to (1) develop an infrastructure for Plastic Surgery Educational Foundation-conducted, industry-sponsored research in facial aesthetic surgery and (2) test the research process by comparing outcomes of the Obagi Nu-Derm System versus conventional therapy as treatment adjuncts for facial resurfacing procedures.

METHODS

The Skin Products Assessment Research study was designed as a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. The study was conducted in women with Fitzpatrick type I to IV skin, moderate to severe facial photodamage, and periocular and/or perioral fine wrinkles. Patients underwent chemical peel or laser facial resurfacing and were randomized to the Obagi Nu-Derm System or a standard care regimen. The study endpoints were time to reepithelialization, erythema, and pigmentation changes.

RESULTS

Fifty-six women were enrolled and 82 percent were followed beyond reepithelialization. There were no significant differences in mean time to reepithelialization between Obagi Nu-Derm System and control groups. The Obagi Nu-Derm System group had a significantly higher median erythema score on the day of surgery (after 4 weeks of product use) that did not persist after surgery. Test-retest photographic evaluations demonstrated that both interrater and intrarater reliability were adequate for primary study outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors demonstrated no significant difference in time to reepithelialization between patients who used the Obagi Nu-Derm System or a standard care regimen as an adjunct to facial resurfacing procedures. The Skin Products Assessment Research team has also provided a discussion of future challenges for Plastic Surgery Educational Foundation-sponsored clinical research for readers of this article.

The evidence base for oral and maxillofacial surgery: 10-year analysis of two journals

All articles published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) and the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (IJOMS) between January 1999 and December 2009 were classified by study design and evaluated to find the evidence base in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS). Those in related specialties, and the impact factor of related dental journals were also compared. From a total of 3294 articles (1715 (52%) BJOMS; and 1579 (48%) IJOMS) most of the studies were observational or descriptive (36% BJOMS; and 31% IJOMS). Review articles constituted 5% in the British Journal and 6% in the International Journal. Analytical (non-controlled) studies made up 6% and 7% of the studies in the British Journal and the International Journal, respectively. There were 28 randomised controlled trials (RCT) (2%) in the British Journal and 40 (3%) in the International Journal. One meta-analysis was recorded in the International Journal, and one closed loop audit was recorded in the British Journal. Forty percent of the papers in both journals were non-clinical, scientific, or animal studies. The number of RCTs published in OMFS is low and is comparable with the related specialties of ear, nose, and throat (ENT) (1%) and plastic surgery (4%). Greater effort is required to carry out quality research if we are to provide the best possible evidence to patients for our interventions.