Riaz Ahmed Agha1, Seon-Young Lee, Kyung Jin Lee Jeong, Alexander J Fowler, Dennis P Orgill. 1. From the *Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Wakefield; †Southampton Medical School, Southampton; ‡Bart's and the Royal London Medical School, London, United Kingdom; and §Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to determine the compliance of observational studies in plastic surgery with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement checklist. METHODS: All cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies published in five major plastic surgery journals in 2013 were assessed for their compliance with the STROBE statement. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six studies were identified initially and 94 met the inclusion criteria. The average STROBE score was 12.4 (range, 2-20.1) with a standard deviation of 3.36. The most frequent reporting deficiencies were not reporting the study design in the title and abstract 30% compliance; describing the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection (24%); describing efforts to address sources of bias (20%); reporting numbers of individuals at each stage of the study (20%); and discussing limitations (40%). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of observational studies in Plastic Surgery needs improvement. We suggest ways this could be improved including better education, awareness among all stakeholders, and hardwiring compliance through electronic journal submission systems.
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to determine the compliance of observational studies in plastic surgery with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement checklist. METHODS: All cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies published in five major plastic surgery journals in 2013 were assessed for their compliance with the STROBE statement. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six studies were identified initially and 94 met the inclusion criteria. The average STROBE score was 12.4 (range, 2-20.1) with a standard deviation of 3.36. The most frequent reporting deficiencies were not reporting the study design in the title and abstract 30% compliance; describing the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection (24%); describing efforts to address sources of bias (20%); reporting numbers of individuals at each stage of the study (20%); and discussing limitations (40%). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of observational studies in Plastic Surgery needs improvement. We suggest ways this could be improved including better education, awareness among all stakeholders, and hardwiring compliance through electronic journal submission systems.
Authors: Riaz Agha; Alexander J Fowler; Seon-Young Lee; Buket Gundogan; Katharine Whitehurst; Hakiran Sagoo; Kyung Jin Lee Jeong; Douglas G Altman; Dennis P Orgill Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Martine Hendriksma; Michiel H M A Joosten; Jeroen P M Peters; Wilko Grolman; Inge Stegeman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Riaz Ahmed Agha; Mimi R Borrelli; Martinique Vella-Baldacchino; Rachel Thavayogan; Dennis P Orgill Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: Lars G Hemkens; Eric I Benchimol; Sinéad M Langan; Matthias Briel; Benjamin Kasenda; Jean-Marie Januel; Emily Herrett; Erik von Elm Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Thomas E Pidgeon; Charmilie Chandrakumar; Yasser Al Omran; Christopher Limb; Rachel Thavayogan; Buket Gundogan; Kiron Koshy; Amelia White; Alex Fowler; Riaz Agha Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2018-02-03