Levels of evidence in plastic surgery: an analysis of resident involvement

Conversion of Plastic Surgery meeting abstract presentations to full manuscripts: a brazilian perspective

Objective

to assess the conversion rate of Plastic Surgery meeting abstract presentations to full manuscript publications and examine factors associated with this conversion.

Methods

we assessed the abstracts presented at the 47th and 48th Brazilian Congresses of Plastic Surgery by cross-referencing with multiple databases. We analyzed the Abstracts' characteristics associated with full manuscript publications.

Results

of the 200 abstracts presented, 50 abstracts were subsequently published in full, giving the conference a conversion rate of 25%. The mean time to publish was 15.00±13.75 months. In total, there were 4.93±1.63 authors per abstract and 67.8±163 subjects per abstract; 43.5% of the abstracts were of retrospective studies; 69% comprised the plastic surgery topics head and neck, and chest and trunk, and 88.5% had no statistical analysis. Overall, 80% of the manuscripts were published in plastic surgery journals, 76% had no impact factor and 52% had no citations. Bivariate and multivariate analyses revealed the presence of statistical analysis to be the most significant (p<0.05) predictive factor of conversion of abstracts into full manuscripts.

Conclusion

the conversion rate found from this bibliometric research appeared a bit lower than the conversion trend of international plastic surgery meetings, and statistical analysis was a determinant of conversion success.

Discrepancies Between Plastic Surgery Meeting Abstracts and Subsequent Full-Length Manuscript Publications

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this bibliometric study was to assess the discrepancies between plastic surgery meeting abstracts and subsequent full-length manuscript publications.

METHODS

Abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Plastic Surgery from 2010 to 2011 were compared with matching manuscript publications. Discrepancies between the abstract and the subsequent manuscript were categorized as major (changes in the purpose, methods, study design, sample size, statistical analysis, results, and conclusions) and minor (changes in the title and authorship) variations.

RESULTS

The overall discrepancy rate was 96 %, with at least one major (76 %) and/or minor (96 %) variation. There were inconsistencies between the study title (56 %), authorship (92 %), purpose (6 %), methods (20 %), study design (36 %), sample size (51.2 %), statistical analysis (14 %), results (20 %), and conclusions (8 %) of manuscripts compared with their corresponding meeting abstracts.

CONCLUSION

As changes occur before manuscript publication of plastic surgery meeting abstracts, caution should be exercised in referencing abstracts or altering surgical practices based on abstracts' content.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

The Public Recognizes Plastic Surgeons as Leading Experts in the Treatment of Congenital Cleft and Craniofacial Anomalies

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the public perception of plastic surgeons (PS) as craniofacial surgery specialists.

METHODS

Members of the public (N = 1514) were asked to choose 1 or 2 specialists that they perceived to be an expert for 13 craniofacial surgery-related scenarios. Response patterns were distributed as "plastic surgeon alone" (PS alone), "PS combined with other specialists", or "no plastic surgeon" (No PS). Sociodemographic data, previous plastic surgery contact, and source of reported information were also collected.

RESULTS

"Plastic surgeon alone" was significantly (all P < 0.05) more recognized as experts than all other response patterns particularly in congenital anomalies-related scenarios (83.33%). There was a significantly (all P < 0.05) poor understanding of the role of PSs in head/neck infection management, chronic facial palsy management, dental disease management, head and neck cancer surgery, vascular malformation surgery, and facial fracture surgery. Sex, age, education level, health care professional, prior plastic surgery contact, and source of reported information were not significant (all P < 0.05) determinants of "PS" as the response in bivariate and multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Public recognized PSs as experts primarily in treatment of congenital cleft and craniofacial anomalies, but as the overall scope of craniofacial surgery practice was poorly understood and known, improved public education is needed.

Public Perceptions of Plastic Surgery Practice in Brazil

The perception of medical specialists by the public has a significant effect on health-care decisions, research funding allocation, and implantation of educational measures. The purpose of this survey was to assess the public's perception of the field of plastic surgery practice. General public members (n = 1290) completed a survey where they matched nine specialties with 28 plastic surgery-related scenarios. Response patterns were distributed as "plastic surgeon alone," "plastic surgeon combined with other specialists," or "no plastic surgeon." Sociodemographic data and previous plastic surgery contact were also collected. "Plastic surgeon alone" was identified as an expert by more than 70 % of respondents in four (40 %) aesthetic-related scenarios and in one (5.5 %) general/reconstructive-related scenario. "Plastic surgeon alone" was significantly (all p < 0.05) more recognized as an expert than other response patterns in all aesthetic-related scenarios, except for botulinum toxin for facial wrinkles. There was a significant (all p < 0.05) poor understanding of the role of plastic surgeons in facial fracture surgery, facial paralysis management, chest wall surgery, hand surgery-related scenarios, and tumor surgery-related scenarios. Age, health-care professional, education level, and prior plastic surgery contact were significant (all p < 0.05) determinants of "plastic surgeon" as a response pattern, according to bivariate analysis and multiple linear regression analysis. The public has a poor understanding of the broad field of plastic surgery practice. Therefore, improved public education about the scope of plastic surgery is needed.