2013
DOI: 10.1007/s00238-013-0893-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: BackgroundWe recently conducted a systematic review of the methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in plastic surgery. In accordance with convention, we are here separately reporting a systematic review of the reporting quality of the same RCTs.MethodsMEDLINE® and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched by an information specialist from 1 January 2009 to 30 June 2011 for the MESH heading ‘Surgery, Plastic’. Limitations were entered for English language, human studies and… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

7
38
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
7
38
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We agree with Agha et al [27] that the country where most CTs were carried out was the US (15). Possibly because it is the country where more research is conducted.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…We agree with Agha et al [27] that the country where most CTs were carried out was the US (15). Possibly because it is the country where more research is conducted.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…This is a non-commercial systematic review and was planned meticulously by a multidisciplinary group, which has experience of systematic reviews and reporting quality [68][69][70]71,72 . We asked focused research questions with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and performed a comprehensive search.…”
Section: Strengths Of This Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mean overall CONSORT score of both groups (old and new studies) in our study was higher than the mean scores reported by other studies in other surgical disciplines. Adie et al 18 investigated the CONSORT compliance in 150 surgical RCTs and reported a mean adjusted CONSORT score of 0.55, whereas in this study the mean score in the new and old studies was 0.68 and 0.60, respectively. Moreover, Agha et al 5 reported mean CONSORT scores of 0.50 and 0.51 in urological RCTs and in non-urological surgical RCTs, respectively, which are lower than the mean scores in the present study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 46%
“…In the Agha et al study, of 74 non-urological RCTs 15 were vascular RCTs, having a mean CONSORT score of 0.54. Furthermore, in another study, Agha et al 18 demonstrated suboptimal reporting quality of 57 plastic surgery RCTs with a median CONSORT score of 0.50. Although this suggests better compliance to the CONSORT statement in the RCTs included in the present study, it should be taken into account the most recent version of the CONSORT statement containing a 25 item-checklist has been used, whereas other studies used the older version consisting of a 22 item-checklist.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%