Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Levels of evidence in plastic surgery—bibliometric trends and comparison with five other surgical specialties

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Categorising research by level of evidence (LOE) is an important evidence-based medicine initiative. Our objective was to assess the change in LOEs in plastic surgery from 2003 to 2013 and compared this with five other surgical specialties.

Methods

A search for all research articles published in the top three general plastic surgery journals (ranked by impact factor) was conducted for 2003 and 2013. Articles were then labelled as LOE 1–5 and compared to other specialties.

Results

Mean LOE for plastic surgery improved by 4.1 % from 3.86 (95 % confidence interval 3.81–3.91) to 3.70 (95 % confidence interval 3.64–3.74) from 2003 to 2013 respectively. All six surgical specialties improved their mean LOE (range 3.7 to 10.9 %). By mean LOE, plastic surgery continues to rank five out of six.

Conclusions

Plastic surgery is tending towards higher levels of evidence at a slow pace. The specialty must continue to drive towards higher levels of evidence.

Level of Evidence: Not ratable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 312:71–2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. ASPS Evidence Rating Scales [online]. Available at: http://www.plasticsurgery.org/Documents/medical-professionals/health-policy/evidence-practice/ASPS-Rating-Scale-March-2011.pdf (accessed 10 November 2014)

  3. Rohrich RJ, Eaves FF III (2011) So you want to be an evidence-based plastic surgeon? A lifelong journey. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:467–472

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Loiselle F, Mahabir RC, Harrop AR (2008) Levels of evidence in plastic surgery research over 20 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:207e–11e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Thomson Reuters. J Citations Rep [online]. Available at: http://thomsonreuters.com/journal-citation-reports/ (accessed 10 November 2014)

  6. Amin M, Mabe M (2000) Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspect Publ 1:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  7. Becker A, Blumle A, Momeni A (2013) Evidence-based plastic and reconstructive surgery: developments over two decades. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(4):657e–663e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Post SF, Selles RW, McGrouther DA, Ritt MJPF, Hovius SER, Fridén J, Walbeehm ET (2014) Levels of evidence and quality of randomized controlled trials in hand and wrist surgery: an analysis of two major hand surgery journals. J Hand Surg Eur 39:900–902

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chuback JE, Varley TL, Yarascavitch BA, Eaves F, Thoma A, Bhandari M (2013) The level of evidence presented at plastic surgery meetings: what do we have to learn? Plast Reconstr Surg 131:776–783

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bhangu A, Fitzgerald JE, Kolias AG (2014) Trainee-led research collaboratives: a novel model for delivering multi-centre studies. ANZ J Surg 84(12):902–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network [online]. Available at: www.reconstructivesurgerytrialsnetwork.com (accessed 4 December 2014)

  12. Academic Surgical Collaborative [online]. Available at: www.surgicalcollaborative.com (accessed 4 December 2014)

  13. Agha RA, Camm CF, Edison E, Orgill DP (2013) The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66:447–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Agha RA, Camm CF, Doganay E, Edison E, Siddiqui MRS, Orgill DP (2013) Randomised controlled trials in plastic surgery: a systematic review of reporting quality. Eur J Plast Surg 37:55–62

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Agha R, Lee S, Jeong KJL, Fowler A and Orgill DP (2015) Reporting Quality of Observational studies in plastic surgery needs improvement: a systematic review. Ann Plast Surg (article in press)

  16. Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Herlin C, Goodacre T, Orgill DP (2015) Use of autologous fat grafting for reconstruction post-mastectomy and breast conserving surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68(2):143–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Balliol College. Reporting guidelines for case series [online]. Available at: http://www.balliol.ox.ac.uk/bii/reporting-guideliness-for-case-series (accessed 4 December 2014)

  18. Equator Network. Preferred reporting of case series [online]. Available at: http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#23 (accessed 4 December 2014)

  19. Time for a new approach to case reports. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2010;1(1):1–3

  20. Agha RA, Goodacre T, Orgill DP (2013) Use of autologous fat grafting for reconstruction post-mastectomy and breast conserving surgery: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 3(10), e003709

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Agha RA, Gundogan B, Fowler AJ, Bragg TWH, Orgill DP (2014) The efficacy of the Cook-Swartz implantable Doppler in the detection of free flap compromise: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 4, e004253

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Sullivan D, Chung K, Eaves FF Rohrich RJ (2011) The level of evidence pyramid indicating levels of evidence in plastic and reconstructive surgery articles. Plast Reconstr Surg ;311–314

  23. Agha R, Cooper D, Muir G (2007) The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. Int J Surg 5(6):413–422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hirst A, Agha RA, Rosin D, McCulloch P (2013) How can we improve surgical research and innovation? The IDEAL framework for action. Int J Surg 11(10):1038–1042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Balliol College, University of Oxford and Department of Plastic Surgery, Guys and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Riaz A. Agha

  2. University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK

    Mariana Devesa

  3. University College London Medical School, London, UK

    Katharine Whitehurst

  4. Department of Vascular Surgery, Guys and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Alexander J. Fowler

  5. Accident and emergency department, Queen’s hospital, Rom Valley Way, Essex, UK

    Robert Coe

  6. Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK

    Georgina Wellstead

  7. Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Dennis P. Orgill

  8. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Peter McCulloch

Authors
  1. Riaz A. Agha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mariana Devesa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katharine Whitehurst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexander J. Fowler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert Coe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Georgina Wellstead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dennis P. Orgill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Peter McCulloch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander J. Fowler.

Ethics declarations

Ethical standard

For this type of study formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Conflicts of interest

Riaz A. Agha, Mariana Devesa, Katharine Whitehurst, Alexander J. Fowler, Robert Coe, Georgina Wellstead, Dennis P. Orgill, Peter McCulloch declare they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

No funding was received for this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Agha, R.A., Devesa, M., Whitehurst, K. et al. Levels of evidence in plastic surgery—bibliometric trends and comparison with five other surgical specialties. Eur J Plast Surg 39, 365–370 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-016-1219-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-016-1219-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation