scholarly journals Efficacy of periodontal plastic surgery procedures in the treatment of localized facial gingival recessions. A systematic review

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
pp. S44-S62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Cairo ◽  
Michele Nieri ◽  
Umberto Pagliaro
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Periodontal Plastic Surgery

Periodontal plastic surgery for treatment of localized gingival recessions: a systematic review

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 178-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Roccuzzo ◽  
Marco Bunino ◽  
Ian Needleman ◽  
Mariano Sanz
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Periodontal Plastic Surgery

Quality of Patient-Reported Outcome Studies Utilizing the BREAST-Q: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lior Har-Shai ◽  
Sar-El Ofek ◽  
Addy Brandstetter ◽  
Keren H Cohen ◽  
Tamir Shay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Survey Research ◽  
Breast Surgery ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Validated Questionnaire ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Current Guidance

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcome (PRO) studies are essential the assessment of surgical procedures in plastic surgery. An accepted and validated questionnaire is the Breast-Q. Objectives This study aims to assess the quality of PRO studies in plastic surgery utilizing the Breast-Q questionnaire. Methods This study included two steps: (1) A systematic review of 23 key-criteria assessing the quality of survey-research in studies utilizing the Breast-Q which were published between 2015-2018; (2) Review of current guidance for survey-research in journals related to Plastic Surgery and Breast Surgery which were included in the systematic review. Results 79 studies were included in the systematic review. Many key-criteria were poorly reported: 51.9% of the studies did not provide a defined response rate and almost 90% did not provide a method for analysis of non-response error. 67.1% lacked a description of the sample's representativeness of the population of interest, and 82.3% did not present a sample size calculation. 11.4% of papers failed to describe the data analyzing methods; in 27.8% the data analysis which was presented could not allow replication of the results. Of the 16 journals in Plastic Surgery and Breast Surgery that their "Instruction to Authors" were reviewed, 15 (93.7%) did not provide any guidance for survey reporting. Conclusions The majority of key criteria are under-reported by authors publishing their survey-research in peer-reviewed journals in the fields of plastic and breast surgery. There is an urgent need for constructing a well-developed reporting guideline for survey-research in plastic surgery and particularly in breast surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document