Evidence-Based Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Developments over Two Decades

Characterizing Clinical Trials in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review of ClinicalTrials.gov From 2007 to 2020

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials form the backbone of evidence-based medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov is the world's largest clinical trial registry, and the state of clinical trials in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) within that database has not been comprehensively studied. To that end, we explored the distribution of therapeutic areas that are under investigation, impact of funding on study design and data reporting, and trends in research patterns of all PRS interventional clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.

METHODS

Using the ClinicalTrials.gov database, we identified and extracted all clinical trials relevant to PRS that were submitted between 2007 and 2020. Studies were classified based on anatomic locations, therapeutic categories, and specialty topics. Cox proportional hazard was used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for early discontinuation and results reporting.

RESULTS

A total of 3224 trials that included 372,095 participants were identified. The PRS trials grew at an annual rate of 7.9%. The therapeutic classes most represented were wound healing (41.3%) and cosmetics (18.1%). Funding for PRS clinical trials is largely provided through academic institutions (72.7%), while industry and US government constituted a minority. Industry-funded studies were more likely to be discontinued early than those funded by academics (HR, 1.89) or government (HR, 1.92) and to be nonblinded and nonrandomized. Academic-funded studies were the least likely to report results data within 3 years of trial completion (odds ratio, 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

A gulf exists in the representation of different PRS specialties among clinical trials. We highlight the role of funding source in trial design and data reporting to identify a potential source of financial waste and to stress the need for continued appropriate oversight.

AAPS Podium Presentations-Has the Level of Evidence Changed over the Past Decade?

An increase in the number and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and trends toward higher levels of evidence (LOE) in the plastic surgery literature has been reported; however, there has not been a specific focus on the LOE of presentations at scientific meetings. The purpose of this study was to ascertain trends in the LOE of studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Plastic Surgeons.

METHODS

A hand search was conducted identifying all abstracts of podium presentations from 2009 to 2019. LOE, using American Society of Plastic Surgeons guidelines, were ascribed to each presentation, along with identification of any corresponding journal publications. RCTs were further analyzed using the 12-item Modified Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials checklist.

RESULTS

Four hundred forty-one studies with a median LOE of 3 were included in the study. A non-significant improvement in the mean level of evidence was noted over time (P = 0.09) along with an increase in the number of level 2 studies (P = 0.589) and RCTs (P = 0.717). Level 1 studies were rare (0.91%) and of fair quality (median checklist score 8 out of 12). Seventy-two percent of abstracts resulted in publication, and the mean lag time to publication was 422 days.

CONCLUSIONS

A favorable trend is observed with respect to the mean LOE as well as the number of level 2 studies and RCTs over time. The importance of research meeting attendance to maintain up-to-date information is noteworthy, given the long lag time from presentation to publication.

Evidence-based Plastic Surgery: Assessing Progress over Two 5-year Periods from 2009 to 2019

Publications on evidence-based medicine have increased. Previous articles have examined evidence-based plastic surgery, but the latest was published in 2013. The aim of this study was to examine the trend in the number of high-evidence publications over two 5-year periods across 3 main plastic surgery journals. Further, this study aimed to quality-assess randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the latter period.

Methods

All articles were identified using PubMed Search Tools and Single Citation Matcher. Three journals were manually screened from May 15, 2009, to May 15, 2014, and from May 16, 2014, to May 16, 2019. The reporting of RCTs was assessed using a modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist.

Results

Of a total of 17,334 publications, 6 were meta-analyses of RCTs, 120 were other meta-analyses, and 247 were initially identified as RCTs. Although a significant increase in the number of higher-evidence publications is observed, these represent 2.09% (n = 363) of the total. An estimated 86 RCTs were eligible for quality-assessment, with the most popular sub-specialty being breast surgery (n = 30). The most highly reported criteria were inclusion/exclusion criteria and blinding (both n = 67; 77.91%), and the least reported criterion was allocation concealment (n = 21; 24.42%).

Conclusions

This study observes a positive trend in high-evidence publications. The number of RCTs published has increased significantly over a breadth of sub-specialties. The reporting of several CONSORT criteria in RCTs remains poor. Observation to standard reporting guidelines is advocated to improve the quality of reporting.

Levels of Evidence in Plastic Surgery Research: A 10-Year Bibliometric Analysis of 18,889 Publications From 4 Major Journals

BACKGROUND

Improving the quality of research published in plastic surgery literature has been recognized as a difficult and time-intensive process. Despite significant progress over the last decade, leaders in the field continue to advocate for higher-quality studies to better inform clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate and analyze trends in the levels of evidence (LOEs) of the plastic surgery literature over the last decade in 4 major journals.

METHODS

After systematic review of all articles published between 2008 and 2017 in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, and Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ), included articles were assigned an LOE and classified according to study design and category.

RESULTS

In total, 8211 articles were included. Case series and reports represented 36.1% and 13.6% of studies, respectively. Additionally, 27.2% were retrospective cohort studies, 8.2% prospective cohort studies, 3.9% systematic reviews, and 2.9% randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Overall, the percentage of Level I/II studies has increased from 10.9% in 2008 to 17.3% in 2017. ASJ published the greatest proportion of Level I/II studies (23.2%) and RCTs (5.1%) of all the journals. There were significant differences in the distribution of Level I/II studies by journal (P < 0.001) and category (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past decade, plastic surgery journals have published higher-quality research and a significantly greater proportion of Level I and II studies. The field must continue to strive for robust study designs, while also recognizing the importance of lower-LOE research.

Publication Rates and Author Characteristics From 3 Plastic Surgery Journals in 2006 and 2016

BACKGROUND

Areas of surgical care in which, traditionally, plastic surgeons were exclusively involved are now routinely offered by other surgical specialists. Whether this shift in clinical responsibilities influenced publication rates of plastic surgeons remains unknown. The current article investigates the proportion of contributions in plastic surgery journals originating from authors with a plastic surgery background as well as publication rates and author demographics.

METHODS

A cross-sectional sample study of every publication originating from Annals of Plastic Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery was performed for 2006 and 2016. Data about the articles' methodological design and branch of plastic surgery as well as authors' country of origin, educational degree and specialty training were analyzed.

RESULTS

From 1721 publications included, head and neck reconstruction was the branch of plastic surgery with the highest number of publications at 18% and most articles (30%) were retrospective cohort studies. From 3381 authors analyzed, a significant proportion originated from United States (34%). More than 85% of authors were physicians as opposed to other health care professionals. The specialty with the highest representation was plastic surgery at 72%, but the proportion decreased in all 3 journals by a mean rate of 3.8% in 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

A slight decrease in publication rates from plastic surgeons occurred in Annals of Plastic Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from 2006 to 2016. Publications rates and author characteristics in plastic surgery journals provide valuable insight on plastic surgeons' contribution to contemporary scientific literature.

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.

Level of Evidence of Abstract Presentations at Brazilian Plastic Surgery Annual Meetings

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this study were to assess trends in the level of evidence of the abstracts presented at a major Brazilian plastic surgery annual meeting, and evaluate the factors associated with a higher level of evidence.

METHODS

Abstracts (n = 400) presented at the 2010 to 2013 Brazilian Congresses of Plastic Surgery were analyzed for level of evidence (levels I-V). All abstracts were also classified into a higher (levels I and II) or lower (levels III, IV, and V) level of evidence. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were applied to evaluate the possible determinants (year, period, number of authors, number of subjects, plastic surgery topic, and presence of statistical analysis) of higher level of evidence.

RESULTS

The weighted average level of evidence was 3.39, with a significant (all P <0.05) overall predominance in the proportion of level of evidence III and lower level of evidence. There was a significant (all P <0.05) increase in the proportion of level of evidence II and higher level of evidence in the evaluated years and periods. Bivariate and multivariate analyses revealed that the year 2013, period 2012 to 2013, ≥6 authors/abstracts, and presence of statistical analysis to be the most significant (all P <0.05) predictive factors of higher level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Brazilian plastic surgery meeting abstracts demonstrated an overall predominance of lower level of evidence and a trend to increase the higher level of evidence, whereas the year 2013, period 2012 to 2013, ≥6 authors/abstracts, and the presence of statistical analysis were determinants of higher level of evidence.

Trends in the Level of Evidence in Clinical Hand Surgery Research

BACKGROUND

The application of evidence-based medicine (EBM) to the practice of hand surgery has been limited. Production of high-quality research is an integral component of EBM. With considerable improvements in the quality evidence in both orthopedic and plastic and reconstructive surgery, it is imperative that hand surgery research emulates this trend.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on all hand surgery articles published in 6 journals over a 20-year period. The journals included Plastic and Reconstruction Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Journal of Hand Surgery-European Volume, Journal of Hand Surgery-American Volume, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, and the Bone & Joint Journal. The level of evidence of each article was determined using the Oxford level of evidence. The quality of methodology of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using Jadad scale. Statistical analysis involved chi-squares and Student t test (P < .05).

RESULTS

A total of 972 original hand surgery research articles were reviewed. There was a significant increase in the average level of evidence of articles published between1993 and 2013. High-quality evidence only accounted for 11.2% of evidence published, with a significant increase over the study period (P = 0.001). Quantitative evaluation of the 26 published RCTs, using Jadad scale, revealed a progressive improvement in study design from 0.3 in 1993 to 3.33 in 2013.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand surgery research has mirrored trends seen in other surgical specialties, with a significant increase in quality of evidence over time. Yet, high-quality evidence still remains infrequent.

[Quality of publications in plastic surgery]

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study is to describe plastic surgery publications in terms of methodology, level of evidence, approval by institutional review board, method of consent, and subspecialty.

METHODS

The 8 top-ranked plastic surgery journals were selected. We manually reviewed the last 40 original articles in each plastic surgery journal, to represent more than 2 months of publications for all journals (range: 3-17 months). Only clinical original articles on human subjects were included. Each article was read at least twice by two different reviewers to ensure accurate data transcription, and then graded by written criteria. One of the senior authors was asked to make a final decision in case of doubt.

RESULTS

Among the articles reviewed, 320 were analyzed. The geographical origin of these publications were Asia (32.5%), Europe (30%), US (28.4%), South America (5.6%), Africa (2.5%), and finally Oceania (1%). Reconstructive surgery remains the specialty area most represented in the journals with almost half of the publications, followed by breast surgery (24%) and plastic surgery (19%). A total of 75.6% were retrospective studies. Nearly 80% of the studies were of low level of evidence. Only 3.5% were randomized trials. Less than 40% of the publications mentioned approval by an institutional committee, and 22.6% a patient's informed consent.

CONCLUSION

This study aimed to analyze the quality of plastic surgery publications, taking into account the criteria of Evidence Based Medicine. This work showed that more than half of the studies did not mention an institutional review board approval (Ethics Committee), and that three quarter of the studies did not indicate the presence of patient's informed consent. Ultimately, over 80% of the studies were of low level of evidence. The top-ranked journals have already imposed guidelines corresponding to the methodology requirements to publish clinical studies in their pages, such as EQUATOR criteria for the PRS journal. Efforts are therefore to be done to raise the scientific level of the publications of our specialty.

Breast Microsurgery in Plastic Surgery Literature: A 21-Year Analysis of Publication Trends

Introduction Microsurgical reconstruction of the breast represents an area of continual evolution, as new autologous flaps are introduced and principles are refined. This progression can be demonstrated by bibliometric analysis of the scientific literature. Methods The top 10 plastic surgery journals were determined by impact factor (IF). Each issue of every journal from 1993 to 2013 was accessed directly, and all articles discussing microsurgery on the female breast were classified by authors' geographic location, study design, and level of evidence (LOE, I-V). The productivity index and productivity share of each geographic region was calculated based on number of articles published and IF. Results A total of 706 breast microsurgery articles were analyzed. There was a significant increase in microsurgical breast research (p < 0.01), with an average 33.6 ± 31.1 articles per year and a mean increase of 4.4 articles per year. Most research was of lower LOE, with level I constituting 0.14% and level II constituting 5.21% of all articles. United States contributed the most research with 336.4 articles, followed by Western Europe with 242.2. However, Western Europe experienced the greatest increase in productivity share, with + 0.50 ± 0.29 growth, while United States demonstrated the greatest decrease in productivity share with - 1.23 ± 0.31 growth. Among autologous flaps, transverse rectus abdominis muscle research had the greatest yearly publication volume until 2002, when overtaken by deep inferior epigastric perforator flap research. Conclusion Over the 21-year study period, the United States not only contributed the greatest volume of research on female breast microsurgery but also demonstrated the greatest decline in research productivity. Efforts should be made to increase the LOE in breast microsurgery research.

Users' guide to the surgical literature: how to perform a high-quality literature search

The article "Users" guide to the surgical literature: how to perform a "literature search" was published in 2003, but the continuing technological developments in databases and search filters have rendered that guide out of date. The present guide fills an existing gap in this area; it provides the reader with strategies for developing a searchable clinical question, creating an efficient search strategy,accessing appropriate databases, and skillfully retrieving the best evidence to address the research question.

A feasible computer-based evaluation tool for reduction mammaplasty patients: indications for operation and monitoring of guidelines

In Sweden, evidence-based national guidelines for the indication for reduction mammaplasty in the public health-care system have been developed by a group of experts. They were defined as breast volume≥800 ml at normal weight. Furthermore, a volume asymmetry of 25% or at least 200 ml or an extreme ptosis may be an indication in some cases. The aim of the present paper was to describe an easy-to-use computer-based tool that has been developed to assure that patients with mammary hyperplasia are evaluated and offered care in a standardized fashion and that the adherence to the guidelines is monitored. Included variables were based on a model for priority grouping originally presented by Strömbeck and Malm in 1986 and comprise body mass index (BMI), BMI-corrected breast volume, ptosis, asymmetry, and general breast-related factors preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively and complications postoperatively. Between June 2007 and January 2013, 377 patients were evaluated. Of which, 275 qualified for operation. With the help of the computer-based tool, compliance to the indications for operation can be easily followed, and hence the intended patients offered a reduction mammaplasty in the public health-care system.