CONSORT

Abstract

Question and answersTell the typical British plastic surgeon that “CONSORT” is a noun and ask him what it means, he will tell you that is the monarch's companion e.g. Prince Phillip. Tell the typical American plastic surgeon that “CONSORT” is a verb and ask him what it means, he will tell you that is habitually associating with an undesirable e.g. a known criminal. Tell almost any plastic surgeon that “CONSORT” is an acronym and ask him what it represents he will have little interest in and even less knowledge of the relevant answer. The fact that most plastic surgeons have no clue what CONSORT represents is a sad commentary on the state of science in our specialty.CONSORT is an acronym for CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. First formulated in 2001 then updated in 2010, the CONSORT statement is “a standard way for authors to prepare reports of trial findings, facilitating their complete and transparent reporting, and aiding their critical appraisal and interpretation”.1http://www.consort-statement.org [accessed 24.09.12].Google ScholarReviewing systematic reviewsRecent systematic reviews highlight the indisputable fact that the quality of plastic surgery randomized control trials (RCTs) needs improvement. Karri performed a systematic review of the three major plastic surgery journals from 1980 to 2004 and identified 133 RCTs that he analyzed for quality using the CONSORT statement.2Karri V. Randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery: survey of output and quality of reporting.J Plast Reconstruct Aesthet Surg. 2006; 59: 787-796Google Scholar He concluded that:“Reporting of certain key items is inadequate.”In 2006, Karri recommended that:“Greater awareness and adherence to CONSORT will improve reporting.”Inspired by Karri's study, JPRAS' “Guide for Authors” has required:“Any randomised controlled trials submitted for publication in the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery should include a completed Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flow chart.”A Harvard group, that analyzed RCT compliance with the CONSORT statement in the three major plastic surgery journals over a 20-year period beginning in January 1986, found similar results to Karri.3Taghinia A.H. Liao E.C. May Jr., J.W. Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery: a 20-year review of reporting standards, methodologic quality, and impact.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008; 122: 1253-1263Google Scholar In 2008, the group concluded:“Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery that are performed need higher methodologic and reporting standards. This improvement can occur if investigators, reviewers, and editorial boards are more aware of well-accepted standards of methodology and reporting.”Finding similar results to both Karri and the Harvard group are Agha et al. who reviewed 57 surgical RCTs from 2009 to 2011 and reported their results in this issue.4Agha RA, Camm CF, Edison E, Orgill DP. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, in press.Google Scholar They recommended that:1.Editors and peer-reviewers need to ensure that RCTs missing key quality criteria are not published.2.A trial methodologist or biostatistician should be involved early on in the planning phase of an RCT.Even if one missed Karri's review, the CONSORT concept should have been familiar to anyone who has read JPRAS “Guide for Authors” within the past five years. JPRAS' editors are to be commended for insisting that all submissions of RCTs to JPRAS use the CONSORT flowchart.SolutionsUntil the other two major journals adopt JPRAS' policy, the quality of plastic surgery research will be mired in mediocrity. Meanwhile, what can readers and researchers who care about quality of clinical trials do? Fortunately, tools for assessing quality are freely available online. The CONSORT checklist, not to be confused with the CONSORT flowchart, can be used to evaluate the quality of any RCT. Indeed some surgical journals such as the American edition of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery require that authors submit a copy of the CONSORT checklist with RCT manuscripts. A detailed explanation of what the CONSORT checklist means is online.5Moher D. Hopewell S. Schulz K.F. et al.CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.Br Med J. 2010; 340: c869Google ScholarResearchers must be prepared to design and execute trials in an internationally accepted ethical, transparent and rigorous manner. Readers must be prepared to critically analyze trials and not merely accept their results unquestioned. Those who fail to apply CONSORT will be victims of another acronym, GIGO – “garbage in, garbage out”. Question and answersTell the typical British plastic surgeon that “CONSORT” is a noun and ask him what it means, he will tell you that is the monarch's companion e.g. Prince Phillip. Tell the typical American plastic surgeon that “CONSORT” is a verb and ask him what it means, he will tell you that is habitually associating with an undesirable e.g. a known criminal. Tell almost any plastic surgeon that “CONSORT” is an acronym and ask him what it represents he will have little interest in and even less knowledge of the relevant answer. The fact that most plastic surgeons have no clue what CONSORT represents is a sad commentary on the state of science in our specialty.CONSORT is an acronym for CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. First formulated in 2001 then updated in 2010, the CONSORT statement is “a standard way for authors to prepare reports of trial findings, facilitating their complete and transparent reporting, and aiding their critical appraisal and interpretation”.1http://www.consort-statement.org [accessed 24.09.12].Google Scholar Tell the typical British plastic surgeon that “CONSORT” is a noun and ask him what it means, he will tell you that is the monarch's companion e.g. Prince Phillip. Tell the typical American plastic surgeon that “CONSORT” is a verb and ask him what it means, he will tell you that is habitually associating with an undesirable e.g. a known criminal. Tell almost any plastic surgeon that “CONSORT” is an acronym and ask him what it represents he will have little interest in and even less knowledge of the relevant answer. The fact that most plastic surgeons have no clue what CONSORT represents is a sad commentary on the state of science in our specialty. CONSORT is an acronym for CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. First formulated in 2001 then updated in 2010, the CONSORT statement is “a standard way for authors to prepare reports of trial findings, facilitating their complete and transparent reporting, and aiding their critical appraisal and interpretation”.1http://www.consort-statement.org [accessed 24.09.12].Google Scholar Reviewing systematic reviewsRecent systematic reviews highlight the indisputable fact that the quality of plastic surgery randomized control trials (RCTs) needs improvement. Karri performed a systematic review of the three major plastic surgery journals from 1980 to 2004 and identified 133 RCTs that he analyzed for quality using the CONSORT statement.2Karri V. Randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery: survey of output and quality of reporting.J Plast Reconstruct Aesthet Surg. 2006; 59: 787-796Google Scholar He concluded that:“Reporting of certain key items is inadequate.”In 2006, Karri recommended that:“Greater awareness and adherence to CONSORT will improve reporting.”Inspired by Karri's study, JPRAS' “Guide for Authors” has required:“Any randomised controlled trials submitted for publication in the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery should include a completed Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flow chart.”A Harvard group, that analyzed RCT compliance with the CONSORT statement in the three major plastic surgery journals over a 20-year period beginning in January 1986, found similar results to Karri.3Taghinia A.H. Liao E.C. May Jr., J.W. Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery: a 20-year review of reporting standards, methodologic quality, and impact.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008; 122: 1253-1263Google Scholar In 2008, the group concluded:“Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery that are performed need higher methodologic and reporting standards. This improvement can occur if investigators, reviewers, and editorial boards are more aware of well-accepted standards of methodology and reporting.”Finding similar results to both Karri and the Harvard group are Agha et al. who reviewed 57 surgical RCTs from 2009 to 2011 and reported their results in this issue.4Agha RA, Camm CF, Edison E, Orgill DP. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, in press.Google Scholar They recommended that:1.Editors and peer-reviewers need to ensure that RCTs missing key quality criteria are not published.2.A trial methodologist or biostatistician should be involved early on in the planning phase of an RCT.Even if one missed Karri's review, the CONSORT concept should have been familiar to anyone who has read JPRAS “Guide for Authors” within the past five years. JPRAS' editors are to be commended for insisting that all submissions of RCTs to JPRAS use the CONSORT flowchart. Recent systematic reviews highlight the indisputable fact that the quality of plastic surgery randomized control trials (RCTs) needs improvement. Karri performed a systematic review of the three major plastic surgery journals from 1980 to 2004 and identified 133 RCTs that he analyzed for quality using the CONSORT statement.2Karri V. Randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery: survey of output and quality of reporting.J Plast Reconstruct Aesthet Surg. 2006; 59: 787-796Google Scholar He concluded that:“Reporting of certain key items is inadequate.” In 2006, Karri recommended that:“Greater awareness and adherence to CONSORT will improve reporting.” Inspired by Karri's study, JPRAS' “Guide for Authors” has required:“Any randomised controlled trials submitted for publication in the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery should include a completed Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flow chart.” A Harvard group, that analyzed RCT compliance with the CONSORT statement in the three major plastic surgery journals over a 20-year period beginning in January 1986, found similar results to Karri.3Taghinia A.H. Liao E.C. May Jr., J.W. Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery: a 20-year review of reporting standards, methodologic quality, and impact.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008; 122: 1253-1263Google Scholar In 2008, the group concluded:“Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery that are performed need higher methodologic and reporting standards. This improvement can occur if investigators, reviewers, and editorial boards are more aware of well-accepted standards of methodology and reporting.” Finding similar results to both Karri and the Harvard group are Agha et al. who reviewed 57 surgical RCTs from 2009 to 2011 and reported their results in this issue.4Agha RA, Camm CF, Edison E, Orgill DP. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, in press.Google Scholar They recommended that:1.Editors and peer-reviewers need to ensure that RCTs missing key quality criteria are not published.2.A trial methodologist or biostatistician should be involved early on in the planning phase of an RCT. Even if one missed Karri's review, the CONSORT concept should have been familiar to anyone who has read JPRAS “Guide for Authors” within the past five years. JPRAS' editors are to be commended for insisting that all submissions of RCTs to JPRAS use the CONSORT flowchart. SolutionsUntil the other two major journals adopt JPRAS' policy, the quality of plastic surgery research will be mired in mediocrity. Meanwhile, what can readers and researchers who care about quality of clinical trials do? Fortunately, tools for assessing quality are freely available online. The CONSORT checklist, not to be confused with the CONSORT flowchart, can be used to evaluate the quality of any RCT. Indeed some surgical journals such as the American edition of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery require that authors submit a copy of the CONSORT checklist with RCT manuscripts. A detailed explanation of what the CONSORT checklist means is online.5Moher D. Hopewell S. Schulz K.F. et al.CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.Br Med J. 2010; 340: c869Google ScholarResearchers must be prepared to design and execute trials in an internationally accepted ethical, transparent and rigorous manner. Readers must be prepared to critically analyze trials and not merely accept their results unquestioned. Those who fail to apply CONSORT will be victims of another acronym, GIGO – “garbage in, garbage out”. Until the other two major journals adopt JPRAS' policy, the quality of plastic surgery research will be mired in mediocrity. Meanwhile, what can readers and researchers who care about quality of clinical trials do? Fortunately, tools for assessing quality are freely available online. The CONSORT checklist, not to be confused with the CONSORT flowchart, can be used to evaluate the quality of any RCT. Indeed some surgical journals such as the American edition of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery require that authors submit a copy of the CONSORT checklist with RCT manuscripts. A detailed explanation of what the CONSORT checklist means is online.5Moher D. Hopewell S. Schulz K.F. et al.CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.Br Med J. 2010; 340: c869Google Scholar Researchers must be prepared to design and execute trials in an internationally accepted ethical, transparent and rigorous manner. Readers must be prepared to critically analyze trials and not merely accept their results unquestioned. Those who fail to apply CONSORT will be victims of another acronym, GIGO – “garbage in, garbage out”. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: A systematic reviewJournal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic SurgeryVol. 66Issue 4PreviewOur objective was to assess the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Plastic Surgery. Full-Text PDF