A Review of Meta-Analyses in Plastic Surgery: Need for Adequate Assessment of Publication Bias

INTRODUCTION

Publication bias describes a phenomenon in which significant positive results have a higher likelihood of being published compared to negative or nonsignificant results. Publication bias can confound the estimated therapeutic effect in meta-analyses and needs to be adequately assessed in the surgical literature.

METHODS

A review of meta-analyses published in five plastic surgery journals from 2002 to 2022 was conducted. The inclusion criteria for meta-analyses were factors that demonstrated an obligation to assess publication bias, such as interventions with comparable treatment groups and enough power for statistical analysis. Acknowledgment of publication bias risk, quality of bias assessment, methods used in assessment, and individual article factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

318 unique meta-analyses were identified in literature search, and after full-text reviews, 143 met the inclusion criteria for obligation to assess publication bias. 64% of eligible meta-analyses acknowledged the confounding potential of publication bias, and only 46% conducted a formal assessment. Of those who conducted an assessment, 49% used subjective inspection of funnel plots alone, while 47% used any statistical testing in analysis. Overall, only 9/143 (6.3%) assessed publication bias and attempted to correct for its effect. Journals with a higher average impact factor were associated with mention and assessment of publication bias, but more recent publication year and higher number of primary articles analyzed were not.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified low rates of proper publication bias assessment in meta-analyses published in five major plastic surgery journals. Assessment of publication bias using objective statistical testing is necessary to ensure quality literature within surgical disciplines.

Keloid Intralesional Excision Reduces Recurrence: A Meta-analytic Study of the Available Literature on 608 Keloids

Background

The objective of this meta-analysis was to examine the effectiveness of keloid intralesional excision (KILE) in preventing recurrence. Treatment of keloids using surgical excision alone leads to high rates of recurrence. To date, there are no widely accepted guidelines for keloid treatment, and a multitude of adjunctive therapies are used to reduce recurrence. Despite these efforts, recurrence remains high. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis of the existing literature on KILE to determine its role in recurrence reduction.

Methods

A literature review using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was performed. Two authors independently evaluated studies for eligibility. Incidence of keloid recurrence was recorded, and a comprehensive meta-analysis was performed to assess the pooled keloid recurrence rate, as well as the effect of additional therapies.

Results

Twenty-two studies evaluating intralesional excision of 608 keloids were included in the study. Average time to follow-up was 19.2 months (range 6-35 months). A meta-analysis of proportions was conducted, demonstrating a pooled recurrence rate of 13% (95% confidence interval, 9%-16%). There was no evidence that using therapies in addition to KILE had a significant effect on the overall pooled recurrence rate.

Conclusions

A meta-analysis of 608 keloids shows that KILE is an effective technique in preventing keloid recurrence, with a pooled recurrence rate of 13% compared with previously reported rates of 45%-100% after complete excision. Although there are no standard guidelines for keloid treatment, our meta-analysis shows that KILE is promising in recurrence reduction.

Characterization of Auricular Growth within the Pediatric Population Using Computed Tomography Scan Measurements

Background

In patients with microtia, auricular reconstruction is ideally performed promptly to prevent impaired socialization during formative childhood years. The earliest viable age for reconstruction is widely accepted from 7-10 years of age, as full auricular size is achieved around age 8, with some variability dependent on sex. This retrospective study aims to provide an auricular growth curve that accounts for age and sex, enhancing the individualized approach to ear reconstruction.

Methods

A total of 319 images of unaffected patients who underwent computed tomography angiography of the head and neck were reviewed, with bilateral cartilage height and width measured according to a consensus-standardized image measurement protocol. Means and SDs of cartilage height and width were calculated for both sexes, and analysis of ear growth was performed through plotting the mean cartilage height, width, and width:height ratio over time.

Results

Cartilage height and width differed significantly between male and female groups. Maximum cartilage height was reached at age 11 for female and at age 12 for male patients, whereas maximum cartilage width was reached at ages 10 and 8, respectively. On average, the width:height ratio for female group was 0.58. For male group, the average width:height ratio was 0.59.

Conclusions

An auricular growth map was designed using computed tomography measurements demonstrating maximum auricular size at age 11 and 12 respectively for female and male patients, with both sexes having a width:height ratio maintained at approximately 0.6 throughout growth.