How to deliver an oral presentation.

Delivering an oral presentation in conferences and meetings can seem daunting. However, if delivered effectively, it can be an invaluable opportunity to showcase your work in front of peers as well as receive feedback on your project. In this "How to" article, we demonstrate how one can plan and successfully deliver an engaging oral presentation.

How to organize a medical elective.

The medical elective is often considered a major highlight of the medical school experience. However, organizing an elective can be a daunting experience. From selecting a destination, to securing bursaries, the road is fraught with uncertainty. In this article, we provide some guidance on how to successfully organize a medical elective. This includes the selection of the destination; options for research or clinical practice and tips for budgeting and acquiring travel bursaries.

The use of study registration and protocols in plastic surgery research: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the Declaration of Helsinki changed to mandate that all research studies involving human subjects, rather than just clinical trials alone, must have a protocol registered in a publicly accessible database prior to the enrolment of the first patient. The objective of this work was to assess the number of research studies involving human participants published in leading journals of plastic surgery that had either published a protocol or registered a protocol with a publicly accessible database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review examined all research articles involving human participants published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery and The Annals of Plastic Surgery from 1st April 2014-31st March 2015. The primary outcome measure was whether each study had either published or registered a protocol with any mainstream registry database. ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Standard Randomized Control Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry, the WHO (World Health Organisation) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, The Cochrane Collaboration, the Research Registry, PROSPERO and PubMed were all reviewed. RESULTS: Of 595 included articles, the most common study designs were case series (n = 185, 31.1%). There were 24 randomized controlled trials (RCTs, 4.0%). A total of 24 studies had a protocol registered (4.0%). The most common database to register a protocol was with ClinicalTrials.gov (n = 17). The study design that most commonly had a registered protocol was the RCT (n = 8 of 24, 33.3% of RCTs). Three studies published a protocol in a journal (0.6%). CONCLUSION: Publication or registration of protocols for recent studies involving human participants in major plastic surgery journals is low. There is considerable scope to improve this and guidance is provided.

An assessment of the compliance of systematic review articles published in craniofacial surgery with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review.

CONTEXT: Systematic review evidence is increasing within craniofacial surgery. Compliance with recognised reporting guidelines for systematic review evidence has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the compliance of systematic reviews published in craniofacial journals with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting criteria. DATA SOURCES, SEARCH TERMS AND STUDY SELECTION: Thomson Reuters impact factor was used to identify three top craniofacial journals. A search for all systematic review articles published in these journals from 1st May 2010 to 30th April 2015 was conducted using MEDLINE PubMed. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent researchers assessed each study for inclusion and performed the data extraction. Data included the article reference information; the pathology and interventions examined and compliance of each review article with the PRISMA checklist. DATA SYNTHESIS AND RESULTS: 97 studies were returned by the search. 62 studies proceeded to data extraction. The mean percentage of applicable PRISMA items that were met across all studies was 72.5% (range 28.6-96.2%). The area of poorest compliance was with the declaration of a study protocol (19.4% of studies). Only 37.1% of studies declared their source of funding. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance of systematic review articles within craniofacial surgery with areas of the PRISMA checklist could be improved.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for autologous fat grafting to the breast.

INTRODUCTION: One in eight women will develop breast cancer in their lifetime. Reconstruction is routinely offered to patients and can be autologous and/or implant based. One area of growing interest in autologous fat grafting (AFG). Our group recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of this topic which showed 51 different outcomes were being utilized in the published literature, with substantial heterogeneity in their definitions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A Delphi consensus exercise amongst key stakeholders will be conducted using the long list of 51 outcomes generated through our previous work. We will first group these according to the six domains previously identified; oncological, clinical, aesthetic and functional, patient-reported, process and radiological. Through sequential rounds of voting, the long list of outcomes will be narrowed down using predefined rules of agreement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No patients will be involved in this study and ethical approval is not required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It will also be presented at national and international conferences in the fields of plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery as well as breast surgery and at more general surgical and methodological conferences. It will be disseminated electronically and in print. Brief reports of the review findings will be disseminated directly to the appropriate audiences of surgeons and societies through email and other modes of communication.

Nipple sparing versus skin sparing mastectomy: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer has a lifetime incidence of one in eight women. Over the past three decades there has been a move towards breast conservation and a focus on aesthetic outcomes while maintaining oncological safety. For some patients, mastectomy is the preferred option. There is growing interest in the potential use of nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM). However, oncological safety remains unproven, and the benefits and indications have not been clearly identified. The objective of this systematic review will be to determine the safety and efficacy of NSM as compared with skin sparing mastectomy (SSM). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All original comparative studies including; randomised controlled trials, cohort studies and case-control studies involving women undergoing either NSM or SSM for breast cancer will be included. Outcomes are primary-relating to oncological outcomes and secondary-relating to clinical, aesthetic, patient reported and quality of life outcomes. A comprehensive electronic literature search, designed by a search specialist, will be undertaken. Grey literature searches will also be conducted. Eligibility assessment will occur in two stages; title and abstract screening and then full text assessment. Each step will be conducted by two trained teams acting independently. Data will then be extracted and stored in a database with standardised extraction fields to facilitate easy and consistent data entry. Data analysis will be undertaken to explore the relationship between NSM or SSM and preselected outcomes, heterogeneity will be assessed using the Cochrane tests. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review requires no ethical approval. It will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It will also be presented at national and international conferences. Updates of the review will be conducted to inform and guide healthcare practice and policy.

Compliance of Systematic Reviews in Plastic Surgery With the PRISMA Statement.

IMPORTANCE: Systematic reviews attempt to answer research questions by synthesizing the data in primary articles. They are an increasingly important tool within evidence-based medicine, guiding clinical practice, future research, and health care policy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reporting quality of recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses in plastic surgery with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for systematic reviews published between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014, in 5 major plastic surgery journals. Screening, identification, and data extraction were performed independently by 2 teams. Articles were reviewed for compliance with reporting of 27 items in the PRISMA checklist. Data analysis was conducted from January 1 to July 30, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The sum of PRISMA checklist items (1-27) per systematic review. RESULTS: From an initial set of 163 articles, 79 met the inclusion criteria. The median PRISMA score was 16 of 27 items (59%) (range, 6%-26%; 95% CI, 14%-17%). Compliance varied between individual PRISMA items. It was poorest for items related to the use of review protocol (item 5; 4 articles [5%]) and presentation of data on the risk of bias of each study (item 19; 14 articles [18%]). Compliance was the highest for description of rationale (item 3; 78 articles [99%]), sources of funding and other support (item 27; 75 articles [95%]), and inclusion of a structured summary in the abstract (item 2; 75 articles [95%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The reporting quality of systematic reviews in plastic surgery requires improvement. Enforcement of compliance through journal submission systems, as well as improved education, awareness, and a cohesive strategy among all stakeholders, is called for. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.

The Need for Core Outcome Reporting in Autologous Fat Grafting for Breast Reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing interest in autologous fat grafting (AFG) for breast reconstruction. This systematic review examines the range of outcomes used across studies of AFG, their definitions and whether there is a need for a core outcome set to aid reporting. METHODS: Following the protocol of our systematic review, a search of 20 databases (1986 to March 2014) returned 35 studies which met the inclusion criteria. These were assessed independently by two authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Of the 35 studies, 27 (77%) were case series, 5 (14.3%) were cohort studies, and 3 (8.6%) were case reports. A total of 51 different outcomes were reported. These studies each reported a median of five separate outcomes (range, 2-14), of which a median of 3 outcomes were defined (range, 0-14). A median of 2 outcomes per paper were prespecified in the study methods (range, 0-12) and a median of only 2 outcomes per paper (range, 0-12) were both defined and prespecified. The most commonly reported outcome in studies of AFG was that of "operative details," reported by 26 studies, and eight different outcome definitions were used. "Cancer recurrence" was reported by 20 studies, with the use of 10 different outcome definitions. Overall, there was a poor proportion of defined and prespecified outcomes that employed a wide range of different outcome definitions. In addition only 14/35 studies stated the number of patients lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a core outcomes set for AFG to the breast to minimise outcome and reporting bias and aid evidence synthesis. Our future research will focus in this direction, titled VOGUE or Valid Outcomes for the Grafting of AUtologous Fat to the BrEast study. We invite all those interested to get in touch with the lead author.