Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Published By Plastic Surgeons: Long-Term Follow-Up
- 66 Downloads
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.
To evaluate the evolution of the quality of RCT publications by plastic surgeons in the subsequent 5-year period, from 2009 to 2013.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsRandomized controlled trials Plastic surgery Quality Evaluation
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclosure.
The institutional research ethics committee approved the study (Approval #842388).
For this type of study informed consent is not required.
- 21.Siegel S, Castellan NJ Jr (2006) Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. Portuguese language edition, 2nd edn. Artmed/Bookman, Porto AlegreGoogle Scholar
- 35.Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG (2010) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:c869. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar