DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31821ef408

,  

,  

PMID: 21788824

Issn Print: 0032-1052

Publication Date: 2011/08/01


Print

Observational Studies and STROBE Reporting Quality in Plastic Surgical Conference Abstracts

Karsten Knobloch; Uzung Yoon; Peter M. Vogt

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Excerpt

After the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and American Society of Plastic Surgeons initiative to promote evidence-based medicine1 and striving for high levels of reporting quality,2 it is current belief that randomized controlled trials are the key for guiding and helping clinical decision-making. However, randomized controlled trials in surgical disciplines are often hard to perform and execute; thus, observational studies such as case-control studies and cohort studies come into play. Recently, Jae Song and Kevin Chung have highlighted the benefits of observational studies in our field of plastic and reconstructive surgery in the Journal.3 There have been substantial efforts to improve the reporting quality of clinical studies. Somewhat similar to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials group for randomized controlled trials, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) group has published recommendations to improve the reporting quality of observational studies.4 The STROBE score consists of 22 items to be addressed in the full paper version. Currently, unlike the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials recommendations for abstracts, there are no recommendations for observational abstracts. However, currently it appears to be a reasonable instrument with which to assess the quality of abstracts of observational studies.
Having said this, we thought to evaluate the reporting quality of observational studies presented at plastic surgical conferences. We analyzed 65 oral abstracts and 94 poster abstracts from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons 2008 conference by two independent researchers. In addition, 152 oral and 100 poster presentations from the American Burn Association 2008 meeting were analyzed, as were 102 abstracts from the American Society for Surgery of the Hand annual meeting. We determined the evidence-based medicine level of evidence for study design. Furthermore, the level of reporting quality according to the STROBE recommendations was determined with a maximum score of 22 of 22 points.
We found that at the American Society of Plastic Surgeons 2008 meeting, presentations consisted of 9 percent randomized controlled trials and 53 percent observational studies. The STROBE score was 8.5 ± 2.5 (of 22 points) for oral presentations of observational studies and 8.1 ± 2.3 for poster presentations, which was not significantly different (p = 0.387; 95 percent confidence interval, –0.58 to –1.48). At the American Burn Association annual meeting, 7 percent randomized controlled trials and 64 percent observational studies were presented. The STROBE score was significantly better for oral American Burn Association than for poster American Burn Association observational abstract STROBE score (9.4 ± 1.9 versus 8.5 ± 2; p = 0.005; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.28 to 1.54). We identified 10 percent randomized controlled trials and 58 percent observational studies at the American Society for Surgery of the Hand meeting. The STROBE score was 8.1 ± 1.4 for the American Society for Surgery of the Hand abstracts, somewhat similar to the aforementioned scores at the American Society of Plastic Surgeons meeting (Fig. 1).
Our results indicate that observational studies are the predominant clinical study design at plastic surgical meetings. The reporting quality according to the STROBE criteria is comparable among the conferences analyzed. However, given the frequency of observational studies performed in plastic and reconstructive surgery, we would like to emphasize and endorse the use of the STROBE criteria for improvement of reporting quality of observational studies in plastic surgery.
    loading  Loading Related Articles