95
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Levels of Evidence in Cosmetic Surgery: Analysis and Recommendations Using a New CLEAR Classification

      research-article
      , MD
      Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
      Wolters Kluwer Health

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

          Abstract

          Background:

          The Level of Evidence rating was introduced in 2011 to grade the quality of publications. This system evaluates study design but does not assess several other quality indicators. This study introduces a new “Cosmetic Level of Evidence And Recommendation” (CLEAR) classification that includes additional methodological criteria and compares this new classification with the existing system.

          Methods:

          All rated publications in the Cosmetic Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, July 2011 through June 2013, were evaluated. The published Level of Evidence rating (1–5) and criteria relevant to study design and methodology for each study were tabulated. A new CLEAR rating was assigned to each article, including a recommendation grade (A–D). The published Level of Evidence rating (1–5) was compared with the recommendation grade determined using the CLEAR classification.

          Results:

          Among the 87 cosmetic articles, 48 studies (55%) were designated as level 4. Three articles were assigned a level 1, but they contained deficiencies sufficient to undermine the conclusions. The correlation between the published Level of Evidence classification (1–5) and CLEAR Grade (A–D) was weak ( ρ = 0.11, not significant). Only 41 studies (48%) evaluated consecutive patients or consecutive patients meeting inclusion criteria.

          Conclusions:

          The CLEAR classification considers methodological factors in evaluating study reliability. A prospective study among consecutive patients meeting eligibility criteria, with a reported inclusion rate, the use of contemporaneous controls when indicated, and consideration of confounders is a realistic goal. Such measures are likely to improve study quality.

          Related collections

          Most cited references80

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs

          New England Journal of Medicine, 342(25), 1887-1892
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.

            To determine if inadequate approaches to randomized controlled trial design and execution are associated with evidence of bias in estimating treatment effects. An observational study in which we assessed the methodological quality of 250 controlled trials from 33 meta-analyses and then analyzed, using multiple logistic regression models, the associations between those assessments and estimated treatment effects. Meta-analyses from the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database. The associations between estimates of treatment effects and inadequate allocation concealment, exclusions after randomization, and lack of double-blinding. Compared with trials in which authors reported adequately concealed treatment allocation, trials in which concealment was either inadequate or unclear (did not report or incompletely reported a concealment approach) yielded larger estimates of treatment effects (P < .001). Odds ratios were exaggerated by 41% for inadequately concealed trials and by 30% for unclearly concealed trials (adjusted for other aspects of quality). Trials in which participants had been excluded after randomization did not yield larger estimates of effects, but that lack of association may be due to incomplete reporting. Trials that were not double-blind also yielded larger estimates of effects (P = .01), with odds ratios being exaggerated by 17%. This study provides empirical evidence that inadequate methodological approaches in controlled trials, particularly those representing poor allocation concealment, are associated with bias. Readers of trial reports should be wary of these pitfalls, and investigators must improve their design, execution, and reporting of trials.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.

              To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support. Medline (January 1966 to December 2002) and Embase (January 1980 to December 2002) searches were supplemented with material identified in the references and in the authors' personal files. Data were independently abstracted by three of the authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus. 30 studies were included. Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources. Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 4.05; 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.51; 18 comparisons). None of the 13 studies that analysed methods reported that studies funded by industry was of poorer quality. Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
                Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
                GOX
                Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
                Wolters Kluwer Health
                2169-7574
                November 2013
                06 December 2013
                : 1
                : 8
                : e66
                Affiliations
                From the Swanson Center, Leawood, Kans.
                Author notes
                Eric Swanson, MD, Swanson Center, 11413 Ash Street, Leawood, KS 66211, E-mail: eswanson@ 123456swansoncenter.com
                Article
                00008
                10.1097/GOX.0000000000000001
                4186301
                25289261
                426edfa4-f969-4170-9d2b-bdecffe8cd0a
                Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. PRS Global Open is a publication of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivitives 3.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

                History
                : 15 July 2013
                : 06 September 2013
                Categories
                Special Topics
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content86

                Cited by14

                Most referenced authors1,353