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

"Spin" in Plastic Surgery Randomized Controlled Trials with Statistically Nonsignificant Primary Outcomes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

"Spin" refers to a manipulation of language that implies benefit for an intervention when none may exist. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in other fields have been demonstrated to employ spin, which can mislead clinicians to use ineffective or unsafe interventions. This study's objective was to determine the strategies, severity, and extent of spin in plastic surgery RCTs with nonsignificant primary outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search of the top 15 plastic surgery journals using MEDLINE was performed (2000 through 2020). Parallel 1:1 RCTs with a clearly identified primary outcome showing statistically nonsignificant results ( P > 0.05) were included. Screening, data extraction, and spin analysis were performed by two independent reviewers. The spin analysis was then independently assessed in duplicate by two plastic surgery residents with graduate-level training in clinical epidemiology.

RESULTS

From 3497 studies identified, 92 RCTs were included in this study. Spin strategies were identified in 78 RCTs (85%), including 64 abstracts (70%) and 77 main texts (84%). Severity of spin was rated moderate or high in 43 abstract conclusions (47%) and 42 main text conclusions (46%). The most identified spin strategy in the abstract was claiming equivalence for statistically nonsignificant results (26%); in the main text, focusing on another objective (24%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that 85% of statistically nonsignificant RCTs in plastic surgery employ spin. Readers of plastic surgery research should be aware of strategies, whether intentional or unintentional, used to manipulate language in reports of statistically nonsignificant RCTs when applying research findings to clinical practice.

Jessner's Solution with Trichloroacetic Acid Chemical Peel: Optimizing Outcomes and Safety

Trichloroacetic acid (TCA) is a versatile agent, efficacious in treating a spectrum of facial rhytids and dyschrommias at varying concentrations. TCA is commonly used in a 30%-35% concentration to achieve a medium-depth peel into the upper reticular dermis. The addition of Jessner's solution before the TCA peel application leads to partial removal of epidermis, allowing for deeper penetration of the TCA. This combination is beneficial, as lower concentrations of TCA can be used for the same depth of peel, minimizing complications such as scarring.

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.