Reporting quality among RCTs in plastic surgery is low and in need of improvement .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2014;2(9):11 Eur J Plast Surg. 2014;37:55-62. Epub 2013 Oct 30.57 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) pertaining to plastic surgery research (from 28 journals) were included in this systematic review. The purpose of this study was to determine the overall reporting quality among these RCTs. Results indicated that the median CONSORT score was low (11.5/23), however there is a general trend of improvement over time. There was no correlation between CONSORT score and either the number of authors (Spearman rho=0.12), the journal's impact factor (Spearman rho=0.26) or the geographical origin of the RCT.
Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?
Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?
Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?
Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?
Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?
Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?
Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?
Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?
Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?
How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?
Ja = 1
Ungewiss = 0.5
Nicht relevant = 0
Nein = 0
Die Bewertung der Berichtskriterien bewertet die Transparenz, mit der die Autoren die methodischen und studienspezifischen Merkmale der Studie in der Veröffentlichung angeben. Die Bewertung ist in fünf Kategorien unterteilt, die im Folgenden vorgestellt werden.
3/4
Introduction
4/4
Accessing Data
3/4
Analysing Data
2/4
Results
3/4
Discussion
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
Der Fragilitätsindex ist ein Instrument, das bei der Interpretation signifikanter Ergebnisse hilft und ein Maß für die Stärke eines Ergebnisses liefert. Der Fragilitätsindex gibt die Anzahl der aufeinanderfolgenden Ereignisse an, die zu einem dichotomen Ergebnis hinzugefügt werden müssen, damit das Ergebnis nicht mehr signifikant ist. Eine kleine Zahl steht für ein schwächeres Ergebnis und eine große Zahl für ein stärkeres Ergebnis.
Warum wurde diese Studie jetzt benötigt?
In 2008, The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for non-pharmacological interventions were released to improve and standardize reporting among randomized controlled trials in the literature. It has previously been found that, among randomized controlled trials in the field of plastic surgery, there is room for improvement in regards to methodological quality. However, to date, reporting quality among plastic surgery research papers has not yet been systematically reviewed, emphasizing the need for this study.
Was war die wichtigste Forschungsfrage?
What is the overall reporting quality among randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery research?
- 57 randomized controlled trials from 28 journals were included in this review. Among these RCTs, 7 were multi-centre studies.
- The median CONSORT score was 11.5/23 (range: 4.5-21.0), with a Kappa score of 0.80.
- Median consort scores were 9.9 in 2009, 11.5 in 2010 and 12.9 in 2011, displaying a trend towards improvement in overall reporting quality over time.
- Compliance for the standard CONSORT criteria were lowest for intervention/comparison details (7%), randomization (11%) and blinding (26%).
- In regards to additional CONSORT criteria, 61% of studies stated potential conflict of interest, 75% reported details regarding ethical approval, 47% reported sources of funding, and 16% identified a trial registry number.
- There was no correlation between CONSORT score and either the number of authors (Spearman rho=0.12), the journal's impact factor (Spearman rho=0.26) or the geographical origin of the RCT.
Was sollte ich mir besonders merken?
In general, reporting quality was poor (11.5/23) among randomized controlled trials pertaining to plastic surgery, however there is a general trend of improvement over time. There was no correlation between CONSORT score and either the number of authors (Spearman rho=0.12), the journal's impact factor (Spearman rho=0.26) or the geographical origin of the RCT.
Wie wird sich dies auf die Behandlung meiner Patienten auswirken?
The results from this study suggest that, although there are improvements as time goes on, researchers in the field of plastic surgery should focus on improving the reporting quality of their future studies according to the CONSORT guidelines. As this systematic review only included publications written in English and only up to 2011, additional systematic reviews are needed to monitor any improvement in reporting quality (or lack thereof).
HAFTUNGSAUSSCHLUSS
Der Inhalt dieser Seite dient nur zu Informationszwecken und ist nicht als Ersatz für professionelle medizinische Beratung, Diagnose oder Behandlung gedacht. Wenn Sie eine medizinische Behandlung benötigen, wenden Sie sich immer an Ihren Arzt oder suchen Sie die nächstgelegene Notaufnahme auf. Die Meinungen, Überzeugungen und Standpunkte, die von den Personen auf dieser Seite geäußert werden, spiegeln nicht die Meinungen, Überzeugungen und Standpunkte von OrthoEvidence wider.
0 von 4 monatliche KOSTENLOSE Artikel freigeschaltet
