Dataset Information

Evaluation of the completeness of interventions reported in published randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery: A cross-sectional review protocol.

ABSTRACT: Background:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are critical in developing new therapeutic approaches. Historically, in plastic surgery, RCTs are uncommon as they make up less than 2% of all publications. However there has recently been an increase in RCTs appearing in plastic surgery but the quality of these articles has yet to be assessed. We aim to determine the completeness of intervention reporting in plastic surgery RCTs using the TIDieR checklist. Methods:A search of Pubmed for RCTs published in the top 10 plastic surgery journals as determined by the Google h5-index will be performed by two investigators. All identified articles will be isolated and a random selection of 300 articles will be screened for inclusion in the study by two different investigators. All types of RCTs will be included in this study. Articles will be excluded if they are nonrandomized, observational, follow-up studies, or secondary analyses. Full exclusion criteria can be found within this protocol. Extracted data includes all 12 points of the TIDieR checklist, journal, intervention type, sample size, and funding source. A complete list of what data will be extracted is listed within this protocol. All data extraction will be performed by two independent investigators. All work will be verified by the two investigators and any discrepancies will be resolved via consensus between investigators or with third party adjudication. Dissemination:We plan to publish this review in a peer-reviewed journal. We may also present this review at local and/or national conferences.

SUBMITTER: Evans S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6997583 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of the completeness of interventions reported in published randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery: A cross-sectional review protocol.

Evans Sheridan S Rauh Shelby S Jellison Samuel S Diener Brian B Agha Riaz R Vassar Matt M

International journal of surgery protocols 20200118

<h4>Background</h4>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are critical in developing new therapeutic approaches. Historically, in plastic surgery, RCTs are uncommon as they make up less than 2% of all publications. However there has recently been an increase in RCTs appearing in plastic surgery but the quality of these articles has yet to be assessed. We aim to determine the completeness of intervention reporting in plastic surgery RCTs using the TIDieR checklist.<h4>Methods</h4>A search of Pubmed ...[more]

PMID: 32025594

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe wide variety of operations that a plastic surgeon can deal with creates confusion regarding its proper scope. This confusion was observed in primary physicians as well as medical students. Increasing the perception of medical students toward plastic surgery can aid in career decision-making and early referral patterns. The aim of this study is to gauge a holistic overview of how medical students and interns perceive the plastic and aesthetic surgical specialty in King Faisal University and to suggest a recommended plan.MethodsAn online questionnaire was distributed equally to male and female medical students and interns in a local medical institute. The questionnaire constituted three sections; the first included the biographical data. The second is concerned with the different case scenarios and specialties to be chosen. The third is concerned with the previous clinical exposures. The data were analyzed by SPSS version 21. Between comparison, chi-square tests, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied. Normality tests were conducted using the Shapiro-Wilk's test.ResultsTwo hundred ninety-two students and interns have participated and completed the questionnaire. There were 189 males and 103 females. Plastic surgery was most commonly chosen in the following case scenarios; burn of the hand (74%), broken nose (64.7%), and cosmetic nose reshaping (80.8%). However, plastic surgery was infrequently chosen (selected by <30% of students) in many areas of hands and peripheral neuropathies (severed finger extensor tendon (26.4%), fractured scaphoid (12.7%), carpal tunnel syndrome (14.4%), brachial plexus injury (16.1%)). The most common source of information was the social media, and the least one is meeting with doctors and professors.ConclusionMedical students and interns lack a full view of plastic and reconstructive surgery, especially in hand and peripheral neuropathies. Improving the education of medical students and interns is recommended and needed.

Project description:Objectives (1) To assess endorsement of trial registration in author instructions of urology-related journals and (2) to assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of urology were effectively registered. Design Cross-sectional study of author instructions and published trials. Setting Journals publishing in the field of urology. Participants First, the authors analysed author instructions of 55 urology-related journals indexed in 'Journal Citation Reports 2009' (12/2010). The authors divided these journals in two groups: those requiring and those not mentioning trial registration as a precondition for publication. Second, the authors chose the five journals with the highest impact factor (IF) from each group. Intervention MEDLINE search to identify RCTs published in these 10 journals in 2009 (01/2011); search of the clinical trials meta-search interface of WHO (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for RCTs that lacked information about registration (01-03/2011). Two authors independently assessed the information. Outcome measures Proportion of journals providing advice about trial registration and proportion of trials registered. Results Of 55 journals analysed, 26 (47.3%) provided some editorial advice about trial registration. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration explicitly (p=0.015). Of 106 RCTs published in 2009, 63 were registered (59.4%) with a tendency to an increase after 2005 (83.3%, p=0.035). 71.4% (30/42) of the RCTs that were published in journals mentioning and requiring registration, and 51.6% (33/64) of the RCTs that were published in journals that did not mention trial registration explicitly were registered. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.04). Conclusions The existence of a statement about trial registration in author instructions resulted in a higher proportion of registered RCTs in those journals. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration.

Project description:BackgroundWith advancements in and the evolution of the medical field, several methods and surgical techniques have been developed for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Generally, we can categorize these strategies into two broad groups: autologous reconstruction and implant-based reconstruction. This study aimed to analyze the satisfaction rate between these groups, considering age, timing of breast reconstruction, body mass index (BMI), major complications, and the need for radiotherapy or chemotherapy.Materials and methodsAll the patients who underwent a mastectomy and subsequent breast reconstruction surgery at our institution between August 1, 2013, and August 31, 2017, were invited to complete a BREAST-Q questionnaire. To compare the quality of life and complication rate between the autologous and implant-based reconstruction groups, data were collected from specific patients. All participants completed the Arabic version of the postoperative reconstruction module.ResultsAmong 61 patients, 43 (70.5%) completed the two domains of the BREAST-Q questionnaire, about the satisfaction with the implanted breast and satisfaction with the surgical outcome. These patients were divided into two groups: autologous (n = 21) and implant-based (n = 22) groups. The mean score of satisfaction with the implanted breast was 43.5 for the autologous group and 39.6 for the implant-based group. For the surgical outcome, the scores for the autologous and implant-based groups were 45.4 and 56.0, respectively. However, there was neither a statistical significance in the satisfaction with the implanted breast nor the surgical outcome between the two groups.ConclusionAlthough there are many different surgical techniques to reconstruct a breast after mastectomy, there is still no specific surgical method that is perfect or well-suited for all patients undergoing breast reconstruction surgery. In our study, we found that there was no significant difference in satisfaction between the ABR and IBR group.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of the completeness of interventions reported in published randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery: A cross-sectional review protocol.

Publications

Evaluation of the completeness of interventions reported in published randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery: A cross-sectional review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets