BACKGROUND: We 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. METHODS: MEDLINE® 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 randomised controlled trials. Manual searching for RCTs involving surgical techniques was performed within the results. Scoring of the eligible papers was performed against the 23-item CONSORT Statement checklist. Independent secondary scoring was then performed and discrepancies resolved through consensus. RESULTS: Fifty-seven papers met the inclusion criteria. The median CONSORT score was 11.5 out of 23 items (range 5.3-21.0). Items where compliance was poorest included intervention/comparator details (7 %), randomisation implementation (11 %) and blinding (26 %). Journal 2010 impact factor or number of authors did not significantly correlate with CONSORT score (Spearman rho = 0.25 and 0.12, respectively). Only 61 % declared conflicts of interest, 75 % permission from an ethics review committee, 47 % declared sources of funding and 16 % stated a trial registry number. There was no correlation between the volume of RCTs performed in a particular country and reporting quality. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of RCTs in plastic surgery needs improvement. Better education, awareness amongst all stakeholders and hard-wiring compliance through electronic journal submission systems could be the way forward. We call for the international plastic surgical community to work together on these long-standing problems.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 81 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.