Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery: A 20-year review of reporting standards, methodologic quality, and impact

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 122, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 1253-1263

  Taghinia, Amir H ^a   Liao, Eric C ^a   May, James W ^a  

^a BOSTON CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COCHRANE LIBRARY; EMBASE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY; PLASTIC SURGERY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; ARTICLE; HUMAN;

HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SURGERY, PLASTIC;

EID: 53149153537     PISSN: 00321052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181858f16     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Juni, P., Altman, D. G., and Egger, M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. B.M.J. 323: 42, 2001.
2. Moher, D. CONSORT: An evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. J.A.M.A. 279: 1489, 1998.
3. Schulz, K. F., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R. J., and Altman, D. G. Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. J.A.M.A. 273: 408, 1995.
4. Karri, V. Randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery: Survey of output and quality of reporting. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 59: 787, 2006.
5. Veiga Filho, J., Castro, A. A., Veiga, D. F., et al. Quality of reports of randomized clinical trials in plastic surgery. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 115: 320, 2005.
6. Adetugbo, K., and Williams, H. How well are randomized controlled trials reported in the dermatology literature? Arch. Dermatol. 136: 381, 2000.
7. Balasubramanian, S. P., Wiener, M., Alshameeri, Z., Tiruvoipati, R., Elbourne, D., and Reed, M. W. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: Can we do better? Ann. Surg. 244: 663, 2006.
8. Bhandari, M., Guyatt, G. H., Lochner, H., Sprague, S., and Tornetta, P., III. Application of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) in the Fracture Care Literature. J. Bone Joint Surg. (Am.) 84: 485, 2002.
9. Bhandari, M., Richards, R. R., Sprague, S., and Schemitch, E. H. The quality of reporting of randomized trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000. J. Bone Joint Surg. (Am.) 84: 388, 2002.
10. Kjaergard, L. L., Nikolova, D., and Gluud, C. Randomized clinical trials in Hepatology: Predictors of quality. Hepatology 30: 1134, 1999.
11. Ah-See, K. W., and Molony, N. C. A qualitative assessment of randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology. J. Laryngol. Otol. 112: 460, 1998.
12. Schulz, K. F., Chalmers, I., Grimes, D. A., and Altman, D. G. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. J.A.M.A. 272: 125, 1994.
13. Begg, C., Cho, M., Eastwood, S., et al. Improving the quality of reportingofrandomized controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. J.A.M.A. 276: 637, 1996.
14. Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., and Altman, D. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. J.A.M.A. 285: 1987, 2001.
15. Altman, D. G. Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. B.M.J. 313: 570, 1996.
16. McNamee, D., and Horton, R. Lies, damn lies, and reports of RCTs. Lancet 348: 562, 1996.
17. Rennie, D. How to report randomized controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. J.A.M.A. 276: 649, 1996.
18. Sauerland, S., and Davis, T. R. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT): Better presentation of surgical trials in the Journal of Hand Surgery. J. Hand Surg. (Br.) 29: 621, 2004.
19. Grimes, D. A. The "CONSORT" guidelines for randomized controlled trials in Obstetrics & Gynecology. Obstet. Gynecol. 100: 631, 2002.
20. Egger, M., Juni, P., and Bartlett, C. Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials. J.A.M.A. 285: 1996, 2001.
21. Moher, D., Jones, A., and Lepage, L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: A comparative before-and-after evaluation. J.A.M.A. 285: 1992, 2001.
22. Mills, E. J., Wu, P., Gagnier, J., and Devereaux, P. J. The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp. Clin. Trials 26: 480, 2005.
23. Scherer, R. W., and Crawley, B. Reporting of randomized clinical trial descriptors and use of structured abstracts. J.A.M.A. 280: 269, 1998.
24. Kober, T., Trelle, S., and Engert,A.Reporting ofrandomized controlled trials in Hodgkin lymphoma in biomedical journals. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 98: 620, 2006.
25. Ellis, C., Hall, J. L., Khalil, A., and Hall, J. C. Evolution of methodological standards in surgical trials. Aust. N. Z. J. Surg. 75: 874, 2005.
26. Balk, E. M., Bonis, P. A., Moskowitz, H., et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in metaanalyses of randomized controlled trials. J.A.M.A. 287: 2973, 2002.
27. Huwiler-Muntener, K., Juni, P., Junker, C., and Egger, M. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. J.A.M.A. 287: 2801, 2002.
28. Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control. Clin. Trials 17: 1, 1996.
29. Junker,C. A. Adherencetopublished standardsof reporting: A comparison of placebo-controlled trials published in English or German. J.A.M.A. 280: 247, 1998.
30. Gummesson, C., Atroshi, I., and Ekdahl, C. The quality of reporting and outcome measures in randomized clinical tri- als related to upper-extremity disorders. J. Hand Surg. (Am.) 29: 727, 2004.
31. Shrout, P. E., and Fleiss, J. L. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol. Bull. 86: 420, 1979.
32. Donner, A. Sample size requirements for the comparison of two or more coefficients of inter-observer agreement. Stat. Med. 17: 1157, 1998.
33. Walter, S. D., Eliasziw, M., and Donner, A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat. Med. 17: 101, 1998.
34. Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159, 1977.
35. Offer, G. J., and Perks, A. G. In search of evidence-based plastic surgery: The problems faced by the specialty. Br. J. Plast. Surg. 53: 427, 2000.
36. Barofsky, I., and Sugarbaker, P. H. Determinants of patient non-participation in randomized clinical trials for the treatment of sarcomas. Cancer Clin. Trials 2: 237, 1979.
37. Solomon, M. J., Laxamana, A., Devore, L., and McLeod, R. S. Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Surgery 115: 707, 1994.
38. McLeod, R. Randomized, controlled trials: Is there a role for them in surgery? Ann. Surg. 244: 684, 2006.
39. O'Flynn, K. J., and Irving, M. On the need for evidence-based surgery. Evid. Based Med. 4: 6, 1999.
40. van der Linden, W. Pitfalls in randomized surgical trials. Surgery 87: 258, 1980.
41. Beahrs, O. H. Clinical trials from the surgeon's view. Cancer 65: 2383, 1990.
42. Solomon, M. J., and McLeod, R. S. Surgery and the randomised controlled trial: Past, present and future. Med. J. Aust. 169: 380, 1998.
43. Solomon, M. J., and McLeod, R. S. Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations? Surgery 118: 459, 1995.
44. Khan, A. A., Murthy, A. S., and Ali, N. Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 117: 2080, 2006.
45. Morain, W. D. Get random. Ann. Plast. Surg. 34: 669, 1995.
46. Taylor, H. O. B., Taghinia, A. H., and May, J. W., Jr. An analysis of highly-cited articles in plastic surgery. In preparation, 2007.
47. Shikata, S., Nakayama, T., Noguchi, Y., Taji, Y., and Yamagishi, H. Comparison of effects in randomized controlled trials with observational studies in digestive surgery. Ann. Surg. 244: 668, 2006.
48. Pollock, A. V. The rise and fall of the random controlled trial in surgery. Theor. Surg. 4: 163, 1989.
49. Altman, D. G. Randomisation. B.M.J. 302: 1481, 1991.
50. Chalmers, T. C., Levin, H., Sacks, H. S., Reitman, D., Berrier, J., and Nagalingam, R. Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline: I. Control of bias and comparison with large co-operative trials. Stat. Med. 6: 315, 1987.
51. Altman, D. G., and Schulz, K. F. Statistics notes: Concealing treatment allocation in randomised trials. B.M.J. 323: 446, 2001.
52. Devereaux, P. J., Manns, B. J., Ghali, W. A., et al. Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials. J.A.M.A. 285: 2000, 2001.
53. Montori, V. M., Bhandari, M., Devereaux, P. J., Manns, B. J., Ghali, W. A., and Guyatt, G. H. In the dark: The reporting of blinding status in randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 55: 787, 2002.
54. Day, S. J., and Altman, D. G. Statistics notes: Blinding in clinical trials and other studies. B.M.J. 321: 504, 2000.
55. Chung, K. C., Kalliainen, L. K., Spilson, S. V., Walters, M. R., and Kim, H. M. The prevalence of negative studies with inadequate statistical power: An analysis of the plastic surgery literature. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 109: 1, 2002.
56. Campbell, M. J., Julious, S. A., and Altman, D. G. Estimating sample sizes for binary, ordered categorical, and continuous outcomes in two group comparisons. B.M.J. 311: 1145, 1995.
57. Altman, D. G., Moher, D., and Schulz, K. F. Peer review of statistics in medical research: Reporting power calculations is important. B.M.J. 325: 491, 2002.
58. Bland, J. M., and Altman, D. G. Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. B.M.J. 310: 170, 1995.
59. Tukey, J. W. Some thoughts on clinical trials, especially problems of multiplicity. Science 198: 679, 1977.
60. Assmann, S. F., Pocock, S. J., Enos, L. E., and Kasten, L. E. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 355: 1064, 2000.
61. Matthews, J. N., and Altman, D. G. Interaction 3: How to examine heterogeneity. B.M.J. 313: 862, 1996.
62. Matthews, J. N., and Altman, D. G. Statistics notes. Interaction 2: Compare effect sizes not P values. B.M.J. 313: 808, 1996.
63. Oxman, A. D., and Guyatt, G. H. A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann. Intern. Med. 116: 78, 1992.
64. Pocock, S. J., Hughes, M. D., and Lee, R. J. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials: A survey of three medical journals. N. Engl. J. Med. 317: 426, 1987.
65. Opthof, T. Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovasc. Res. 33: 1, 1997.
66. Seglen, P. O. Citations and journal impact factors: Questionable indicators of research quality. Allergy 52: 1050, 1997.
67. Seglen, P. O. Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthop. Scand. 69: 224, 1998.
68. Walter, G., Bloch, S., Hunt, G., and Fisher, K. Counting on citations: A flawed way to measure quality. Med. J. Aust. 178: 280, 2003.
69. Al-Benna, S., and Clover, J. The role of the journal impact factor: Choosing the optimal source of peer-reviewed plastic surgery information. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 119: 755, 2007.