Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 18, 2025

Quantification of Strain in a Porcine Model of Skin Expansion Using Multi-View Stereo and Isogeometric Kinematics
Published on: April 16, 2017
Evidence-based Plastic Surgery: Assessing Progress over Two 5-year Periods from 2009 to 2019
Toni Huw Mihailidis1, Sammy Al-Benna1
1Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Tygerberg Academic Hospital, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Abstract:
Publications on evidence-based medicine have increased. Previous articles have examined evidence-based plastic surgery, but the latest was published in 2013. The aim of this study was to examine the trend in the number of high-evidence publications over two 5-year periods across 3 main plastic surgery journals. Further, this study aimed to quality-assess randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the latter period.
Methods:
All articles were identified using PubMed Search Tools and Single Citation Matcher. Three journals were manually screened from May 15, 2009, to May 15, 2014, and from May 16, 2014, to May 16, 2019. The reporting of RCTs was assessed using a modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist.
Results:
Of a total of 17,334 publications, 6 were meta-analyses of RCTs, 120 were other meta-analyses, and 247 were initially identified as RCTs. Although a significant increase in the number of higher-evidence publications is observed, these represent 2.09% (n = 363) of the total. An estimated 86 RCTs were eligible for quality-assessment, with the most popular sub-specialty being breast surgery (n = 30). The most highly reported criteria were inclusion/exclusion criteria and blinding (both n = 67; 77.91%), and the least reported criterion was allocation concealment (n = 21; 24.42%).
Conclusions:
This study observes a positive trend in high-evidence publications. The number of RCTs published has increased significantly over a breadth of sub-specialties. The reporting of several CONSORT criteria in RCTs remains poor. Observation to standard reporting guidelines is advocated to improve the quality of reporting.
