Does Acellular Dermal Matrix Really Reduce the Risk of Recurrent Ptosis after Mastopexy?

Swanson, Eric

doi:10.1097/gox.0000000000004491

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…58 Often, the results are incorrect. 32,[59][60][61] A P value of 0.05 is frequently used to denote significance. Some authors believe that achieving a P value of <0.05 proves the validity of their hypothesis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Peer Review

Swanson

2023

Ann Plast Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little information is available regarding how to review a plastic surgery manuscript. This vital responsibility ensures that publications meet an acceptable scientific standard. Thoughtful and thorough reviews are essential to protect patients and surgeons from unscientific practices and products. This discussion provides information for the reviewer, gained from the author's experience, including examples of a thorough review, likely to be useful to the editor, and a cursory one that is unhelpful. The first consideration is relevance. Prerequisites for publication include institutional review board approval, disclosure of financial conflicts, and discussion of the regulatory status of devices. Particular attention is needed to check for conflicts of interest, which are endemic in plastic surgery today. In view of the common practice of using computer-generated imaging, reviewers need to be especially vigilant for inauthentic “photoshopped” photographs. Examples of published images that have been digitally altered are provided. If data are available, it may be possible to check the statistical tests. Reviewers need to be aware of the practice of p-hacking. A quick literature search can identify relevant but unreferenced publications. The manuscript needs to be properly organized into sections. Minor points may be made regarding style. The study design and methodology need to be evaluated to be sure that the conclusions are well supported by data. Randomized studies are rarely feasible. Fortunately, well-done prospective observational studies in consecutive patients can be just as useful. Realistic complication rates are expected. Meta-analyses in plastic surgery are often subject to confounding variables. Comments should be available to the authors; confidential comments hidden from authors are discouraged. Like honesty, transparency is the best policy. Manuscripts should be evaluated solely for merit, not the identity of the author or institution. Timeliness of submission of the review is appreciated by authors. Evidence-based medicine is concerned solely with the facts. The 2 basic criteria are a solid scientific basis and reliable evidence of efficacy. Reviewers need to keep an open mind. Studies that challenge the status quo are often the most valuable ones and are needed for the advancement of the specialty.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the statistics are basic, such as a χ 2 test or a t test, and the data are available, it may be possible for the reviewer to double check the statistics 58 . Often, the results are incorrect 32,59–61 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%