Evidence-based plastic surgery: Controlled trials in three plastic surgical journals (1990 to 2005)

Annals of Plastic Surgery

Volumn 62, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 293-296

  Momeni, Arash ^a   Becker, Axel ^a   Antes, Gerd ^a   Diener, Markus ^a   Bluemle, Anette ^a   Stark, Bjoern G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Controlled clinical trials; Evidence based medicine; Plastic surgery; Randomized controlled trials

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PLASTIC SURGERY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; JOURNALISM, MEDICAL; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SURGERY, PLASTIC;

EID: 65349085520     PISSN: 01487043     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31818015ff     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Chung KC, Kalliainen LK, Spilson SV, et al. The prevalence of negative studies with inadequate statistical power: an analysis of the plastic surgery literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:1-6.
2. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312:71-72.
3. Sibbald B, Roland M. Understanding controlled trials: why are randomised controlled trials important? BMJ. 1998;316:201.
4. Van der Wijden CL, Overbeke JA. Audit of reports of randomised clinical trials published in one journal over 45 years. BMJ. 1995;311:918.
5. Harbour R, Miller J. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ. 2001;323:334-336.
6. Altman DG. Better reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 1996;313:570-571.
7. Galandi D, Schwarzer G, Antes G. The demise of the randomized controlled trial: bibliometric study of the German-language health care literature, 1948 to 2004. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:30.
8. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996; 17:1-12.
9. Training Manual for Handsearchers. US Cochrane Center; December 13, 2002.
10. Chalmers TC, Levin H, Sacks HS, et al. Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. I: control of bias and comparison with large co-operative trials. Stat Med. 1987;6:315-328.
11. Howes N, Chagla L, Thorpe M, et al. Surgical practice is evidence based. Br J Surg. 1997;84:1220-1223.
12. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Surgery and the randomized controlled trial: past, present, and future. Med J Aust. 1998;169:380-383.
13. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Clinical studies in surgical journals-have we improved? Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36:43-48.
14. MorainWD. Get random (editorial). Ann Plast Sur. 1995;34:669-670.
15. Solomon MJ, Laxamana A, Devore L, et al. Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Surgery. 1994;115:707-712.
16. Momeni A, Becker A, Torio-Padron N, et al. Nipple reconstruction: evidence-based trials in the plastic surgical literature. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008;32: 18-20.
17. Panesar SS, Thakrar R, Athanasiou T, et al. Comparison of reports of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in surgical journals: literature review. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:470-472.
18. Maggard MA, O'Connell JB, Liu JH, et al. Sample size calculations in surgery: are they done correctly? Surgery. 2003;134:275-279.
19. Jadad AR. Randomized Controlled Trials. London: BMJ Books; 1998.
20. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408-412.
21. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials. BMJ. 1998; 317:1185-1190.
22. Huemer GM, Bauer T, Gurunluoglu R, et al. Analysis of publications in three plastic surgery journals for the year 2002. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114: 1147-1154.
23. Link AM. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA. 1998;280:246-247.