Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014;37(2):55-62.
doi: 10.1007/s00238-013-0893-5. Epub 2013 Oct 30.

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

Riaz Ahmed Agha  1 , Christian F Camm  2 , Emre Doganay  3 , Eric Edison  4 , Muhammed R S Siddiqui  5 , Dennis P Orgill  6
Affiliations

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

Riaz Ahmed Agha et al. Eur J Plast Surg. 2014.

Abstract

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.

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

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram, illustrating how papers were selected (adapted from Moher et al. [17])
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Compliance of the 57 RCTs with the individual items of the CONSORT statement
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
CONSORT score against number of authors
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
CONSORT score against ISI 2010 impact factor
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
A bar chart of CONSORT score and number of RCTs against country
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323:42–46. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 15;324(7351):1448–1451 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet. 2005;365:1159–1162. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71879-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ. 2008;336:1472–1474. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39590.732037.47. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e3081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003081. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources