Identifying Predatory Journals in Plastic Surgery: A Prospective Study.

Background: Predatory journals promise high acceptance rates and quick publication in exchange for a processing fee. As these journals aim to maximize profits, they neglect traditional mechanisms used to ensure a high-quality publication. Unsolicited email invitations are a characteristic of predatory journals that often inundate the inboxes of surgeons. The objective of this study is to use these emails to identify potentially predatory journals in the area of surgery and plastic surgery. Methods: Unsolicited email requests from surgery-related journals were collected over a 3-month period. Journals were evaluated using a modified version of the Rohrich and Weinstein checklist. The average number of "predatory" criteria met by these potentially predatory journals (PPJs) was compared to that of the top open-access plastic surgery journals which were assumed to be non-predatory for the purposes of this study. Results: In total, 437 unsolicited email requests were received. Of these, 92 emails, representing 57 PPJs, were eligible for inclusion. On average, the PPJs met 5 of the 12 "predatory" criteria, compared to less than 1 in the comparison group. Approximately 96% of these emails, or the respective websites, contained obvious spelling or grammatical mistakes; 98% of these emails came from journals not listed on Scopus, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and/or Web of Science. Conclusions: Of the journals that sent unsolicited emails, 98% met 2 or more criteria and were deemed to be predatory. If a journal contains grammatical mistakes and is not listed on Scopus, DOAJ, and/or Web of Science, authors should be cautious.

Historique: Les revues prédatrices promettent un taux d'acceptation élevé et une publication rapide en échange de frais de traitement. Puisque ces revues cherchent à optimiser leurs profits, elles omettent les mécanismes habituels garantissant la qualité d'une publication. Les courriels d'invitation non sollicités sont caractéristiques des revues prédatrices, qui inondent souvent la boîte d'accueil des chirurgiens. La présente étude visait à utiliser ces courriels pour repérer d'éventuelles revues prédatrices en chirurgie et en plasturgie. Méthodologie: Les chercheurs ont amassé les courriels non sollicités de revues liées à la chirurgie sur une période de trois mois. Ils ont évalué les revues à l'aide d'une version modifiée de la liste de Rohrich et Weinstein. Ils ont comparé le nombre moyen de critères « de prédation ¼ de ces éventuelles revues prédatrices (ÉRP) à celui de revues de plasturgie en libre accès considérées comme non prédatrices pour les besoins de la présente étude. Résultats: Au total, 437 courriels non sollicités ont été reçus. De ce nombre, 92 courriels, représentant 57 ÉRP, étaient admissibles. En moyenne, les ÉRP respectaient cinq des 12 critères « de prédation ¼, par rapport à moins de un dans le groupe comparatif. Environ 96 % de ces courriels ou des sites Web s'y rapportant contenaient des erreurs orthographiques ou grammaticales évidentes, et 98 % de ces courriels provenaient de revues ne figurant pas dans Scopus, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) ou Web of Science. Conclusions: Parmi les revues qui envoyaient des courriels non sollicités, 98% respectaient au moins deux critères et étaient considérées comme prédatrices. Les auteurs devraient faire preuve de prudence lorsqu'une revue renferme des erreurs grammaticales et ne figure pas dans Scopus, DOAJ ou Web of Science.

Reporting Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Digital Replantation: A Systematic Review.

Introduction There is a lack of consensus on what the critical outcomes in replantation are and how best to measure them. This review aims to identify all reported outcomes and respective outcome measures used in digital replantation. Materials and Methods Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and single-arm observational studies of adults undergoing replantation with at least one well-described outcome or outcome measure were identified. Primary outcomes were classified into six domains, and outcome measures were classified into eight domains. The clinimetric properties were identified and reported. A total of 56 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Results In total, 29 continuous and 29 categorical outcomes were identified, and 87 scales and instruments were identified. The most frequently used outcomes were survival of replanted digit, sensation, and time in hospital. Outcomes and measures were most variable in domains of viability, quality of life, and motor function. Only eight measures used across these domains were validated and proven reliable. Conclusion Lack of consensus creates an obstacle to reporting, understanding, and comparing the effectiveness of various replantation strategies.

Reporting Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Comparison between studies assessing outcomes after surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS) has proven to be difficult owing to variations in outcome reporting. This study aimed to identify outcomes and outcome measures used to evaluate postoperative results for CuTS. METHODS: We performed computerized database searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Studies with 20 or more patients aged 18 and older who were undergoing medial epicondylectomy, endoscopic decompression, open simple decompression, or decompression with subcutaneous, submuscular, or intramuscular transposition for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow were included. Outcomes and outcome measures were extracted and tabulated. RESULTS: Of the 101 studies included, 45 unique outcomes and 31 postoperative outcome measures were identified. These included 7 condition-specific, clinician-reported instruments; 4 condition-specific, clinician-reported instruments; 8 patient-reported, generic instruments; 11 clinician-generated instruments; and one utility measure. Outcome measures were divided into 6 unique domains. Overall, 60% of studies used condition-specific outcome measures. The frequency of any condition-specific outcome measure ranged from 1% to 37% of included studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is marked heterogeneity in outcomes and outcome measures used to assess CuTS. A standardized core outcome set is needed to compare results of various techniques of cubital tunnel decompression. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study builds on the existing literature to support the notion that there is marked heterogeneity in outcomes and outcome measures used to assess CuTS. The authors believe that a future standardized set of core outcomes is needed to limit heterogeneity among studies assessing postoperative outcomes in CuTS to compare these interventions more easily and pool results in the form of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Breast Reduction Mammaplasty: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Reduction mammaplasty remains critical to the treatment of breast hypertrophy. No technique has been shown to be superior; however, comparison between studies is difficult due to variation in outcome reporting. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to identify a comprehensive list of outcomes and outcome measures in reduction mammaplasty. METHODS: A comprehensive computerized search was performed. Included studies were randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials involving at least 100 cases of female breast hypertrophy and patients of all ages who underwent 1 or more defined reduction mammaplasty technique. Outcomes and outcome measures were extracted and tabulated. RESULTS: A total 106 articles were eligible for inclusion; 57 unique outcomes and 16 outcome measures were identified. Frequency of patient-reported and author-reported outcomes were 44% and 88%, respectively. Postoperative complications were the most frequently reported outcome (82.2%). Quality-of-life outcomes were accounted for in 37.7% of studies. Outcome measures were either condition-specific or generic; frequencies were as low as 1% and as high as 5.6%. Five scales were formally assessed in the breast reduction populations. Clinical measures were defined in 15.1% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is marked heterogeneity in reporting of outcomes and outcome measures in the literature. A standardized outcome set is needed to compare outcomes of various reduction mammaplasty techniques.

Reporting Time Horizons in Randomized Controlled Trials in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for randomized controlled trial reporting do not require authors to justify their choice of time horizon. This is concerning, as the time horizon when an outcome is assessed has important implications for the interpretation of study results, and resources allocated to an investigation. Therefore, this study seeks to examine the standards of time horizon reporting in the plastic surgery literature. METHODS: This is a systematic review of plastic surgery randomized controlled trials published within the past 4 years. The MEDLINE database was searched to yield relevant studies. All studies included were English language, prospective, nonpharmaceutical randomized controlled trials, comparing two plastic surgical interventions. Studies were classified into plastic surgery domains, and information regarding study population, time horizon reporting, and justification of chosen time horizon, was extracted. RESULTS: The search retrieved 720 articles, of which 103 were eligible for inclusion. Time horizons were reported as either a standardized time point at which all patients were assessed, or a follow-up duration range, or were not reported at all. Although most studies (85.4 percent) reported a standardized time horizon, the majority (85.4 percent) failed to provide a valid justification to support their selection of time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical investigators failed to justify their choice of time horizon in the majority of published randomized controlled trials. To limit heterogeneity, time horizons for given interventions should be standardized to improve validity of outcome assessments, enable future pooling of results, and increase research efficiency.

Introducing Knowledge Translation to Plastic Surgery: Turning Evidence into Practice.

Best evidence has no bearing on quality of life if it is not implemented in clinical practice. The authors introduce knowledge translation as a theoretical framework for closing the gap between evidence and practice in plastic surgery. The current state of published evidence in plastic surgery is reviewed and evaluated, with the recommendation to use the EQUATOR Network's guidelines for reporting clinical research findings. Tools and strategies are offered for the reader to understand and integrate evidence at the bedside. Systemic solutions are also proposed for the dissemination of best evidence to facilitate its translation into practice.