Evolution of reports of randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributor.authorVeiga, Daniela Francescato [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorVeiga Filho, Joel [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorPellizzon, Rosely de Fátima [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorJuliano, Yara [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorFerreira, Lydia Masako [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
dc.contributor.institutionUniv Vale Sapucai
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-24T14:16:49Z
dc.date.available2016-01-24T14:16:49Z
dc.date.issued2011-06-01
dc.description.abstractWell-designed, well-conducted and well-reported randomised clinical trials (RCTs) can significantly impact medical care, by contributing to a strong evidence base from which clinical guidelines can be derived. in a previous study, we assessed the quality of reports of RCTs in plastic surgery published from 1966 to 2003. the aim of the present study was to verify what have changed over the last years. RCTs in plastic surgery published from 2004 to 2008 were identified through electronic searches, and classified according to their allocation concealment. Trials with allocation concealment appropriately described were evaluated as to their quality. Two independent reviewers performed the evaluations, using two tools: the Delphi List and the Jadad's quality scale. From 3840 identified studies, 96 were selected for classification according to allocation concealment; 28 (29%) of them appropriately described allocation concealment. From 1966 to 2003, 34 (17%) RCTs appropriately described allocation concealment (chi(2) = 22.98, p < 0.000). in the evaluation of the 28 RCTs by the Delphi List, the agreement coefficient between raters (kw) was 0.46 (z = 7.24, p < 0.000). Groups were similar at baseline in 96.4% of these trials, and this was the only item of the Delphi List, which significantly improved when compared with the period from 1966 to 2003 (chi(2) = 18.53, p < 0.000). When evaluated by Jadad's criteria, 14% of the RCTs were scored two points or less and thus considered of low quality (kw = 0.72, z = 8.57, p < 0.001). From 1966 to 2003, 59% of RCTs were scored two points or less (chi(2) = 17.07, p < 0.004). We concluded that the quality of reports of RCTs in plastic surgery (as measured by the Jadad's criteria and only one component of the nine components of the Delphi List) significantly increased over the last years. (C) 2010 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.en
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Div Plast Surg, Dept Surg, BR-04024002 São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUniv Vale Sapucai, Div Plast Surg, Dept Surg, Pouso Alegre, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Div References, Cent Lib, BR-04024002 São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUniv Vale Sapucai, Dept Bioestat, Pouso Alegre, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Plast Surg Postgrad Program, BR-04024002 São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnifespUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Div Plast Surg, Dept Surg, BR-04024002 São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnifespUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Div References, Cent Lib, BR-04024002 São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnifespUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Plast Surg Postgrad Program, BR-04024002 São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.sourceWeb of Science
dc.format.extent703-709
dc.identifierhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2010.11.015
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery. Oxford: Elsevier B.V., v. 64, n. 6, p. 703-709, 2011.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.bjps.2010.11.015
dc.identifier.issn1748-6815
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/33752
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000290562600009
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.rights.licensehttp://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/article-posting-policy
dc.subjectRandomised clinical trialsen
dc.subjectPlastic surgeryen
dc.subjectReview literature as topicen
dc.subjectQualityen
dc.subjectEvaluationen
dc.titleEvolution of reports of randomised clinical trials in plastic surgeryen
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
Arquivos
Coleções
EPM - Outras produções