Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Plastic Surgery

Credible clinical research is a precondition of evidence-based surgery. If clinical research is not conducted and reported properly, such research can be unreliable, unclear, and misleading. Our journal, Plastic Surgery, aims to improve its quality and thus enhance interest, submissions, and readership. To do so, we must ensure that the articles published in our journal align with these goals. This article guides future clinical research contributors, how to design, conduct and report valuable and reliable research. Readers are informed how to choose a title and keywords that properly reflect the content of the article. The proper organization of a manuscript, and the information that goes into each section is described. Valuable tools like the EQUATOR Network Guidelines, the FINER Criteria and the PICOT Format are described for the reader. These resources help formulate a proper research question and ensure transparency in reporting. Commonly used study designs, and the research questions they answer are presented. This ensures that those engaged in research are choosing the right study design for their research. We outline the statistical information that should be presented in the Methods section and differentiate between the content that should be found in the Results and Discussion sections. As Plastic Surgery strives to publish high-quality, reliable research, it is by the standards presented in this article that we will judge all manuscripts submitted for publication.

Protocol for development of a reporting guideline (TRIPOD-AI) and risk of bias tool (PROBAST-AI) for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies based on artificial intelligence

IntroductionThe Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model of Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement and the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) were both published to improve the reporting and critical appraisal of prediction model studies for diagnosis and prognosis. This paper describes the processes and methods that will be used to develop an extension to the TRIPOD statement (TRIPOD-artificial intelligence, AI) and the PROBAST (PROBAST-AI) tool for prediction model studies that applied machine learning techniques.Methods and analysisTRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI will be developed following published guidance from the EQUATOR Network, and will comprise five stages. Stage 1 will comprise two systematic reviews (across all medical fields and specifically in oncology) to examine the quality of reporting in published machine-learning-based prediction model studies. In stage 2, we will consult a diverse group of key stakeholders using a Delphi process to identify items to be considered for inclusion in TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI. Stage 3 will be virtual consensus meetings to consolidate and prioritise key items to be included in TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI. Stage 4 will involve developing the TRIPOD-AI checklist and the PROBAST-AI tool, and writing the accompanying explanation and elaboration papers. In the final stage, stage 5, we will disseminate TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI via journals, conferences, blogs, websites (including TRIPOD, PROBAST and EQUATOR Network) and social media. TRIPOD-AI will provide researchers working on prediction model studies based on machine learning with a reporting guideline that can help them report key details that readers need to evaluate the study quality and interpret its findings, potentially reducing research waste. We anticipate PROBAST-AI will help researchers, clinicians, systematic reviewers and policymakers critically appraise the design, conduct and analysis of machine learning based prediction model studies, with a robust standardised tool for bias evaluation.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the Central University Research Ethics Committee, University of Oxford on 10-December-2020 (R73034/RE001). Findings from this study will be disseminated through peer-review publications.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019140361 and CRD42019161764.

GoodReports - developing a website to help health researchers find and use reporting guidelines

Background: The EQUATOR Network improves the quality and transparency in health research, primarily by promoting awareness and use of reporting guidelines. In 2018, the UK EQUATOR Centre launched GoodReports.org, a website that helps authors find and use reporting guidelines. This paper describes the tool’s development so far. We evaluated user experience and behaviour while using the website as part of manuscript submission to a journal to inform future development. Methods: We conducted a survey to collect data on users’ experience of the GoodReports website during manuscript submission. We assessed the tool’s reliability by checking our agreement with the tool’s checklist recommendation on a random sample of manuscripts submitted to a partner journal. We compared the proportion of authors submitting a reporting checklist alongside their manuscripts between groups exposed or not exposed to the GoodReports tool. We compared the text of manuscripts before an author received a reporting guideline recommendation with the text subsequently submitted to the partner journal. Results: Seventy percent (423/599) of survey respondents rated GoodReports 8 or more out of 10 for usefulness, and 74% (198/267) said they had made changes to their manuscript after using the website. We agreed with the GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation in 84% (72/86) of cases. Of authors who completed the guideline finder questionnaire, 14% (10/69) failed to submit a completed checklist compared to 30% (41/136) who did not use the tool. Of the 69 authors who received a GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation, 20 manuscript pairs were included in a before-and-after study. Five included more information in their methods section after exposure to GoodReports. On average, authors reported 57% of necessary reporting items before completing a checklist on GoodReports.org and 60% after. Conclusion: The data provide encouraging signs that GoodReports could increase the use of reporting guidelines. They also underline the need for reporting guidance to be introduced early in the writing process. We are developing GoodReports by adding more reporting guidelines to the database, and by developing the functionality to integrate reporting items into Word article templates. We will test whether GoodReports users write more complete study reports in a randomised trial.

How partners of pregnant women use their social networks when preparing for childbirth and parenthood: A qualitative study

Social contextual circumstances have an influence on parental transition, and social support has been shown to facilitate the transition to parenthood, among other states. Further knowledge is, however, needed to explore how partners of pregnant women use their social networks during pregnancy. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore how partners of pregnant women use their social networks when preparing for childbirth and parenting. Within this study, a social network is defined as social connections such as family, friends and significant others. In total, 14 partners (expectant fathers and co-mothers) were interviewed. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. EQUATOR Network guidelines and the COREQ checklist were applied. The analysis resulted in one theme of meaning: Partners use their social networks to receive social support, which facilitates understanding about how to prepare for childbirth and parenthood, which was described through three sub-themes. The results highlight the importance of social networks for partners when preparing for childbirth and parenthood. Professionals should aim to strengthen and extend partners’ social networks and access to social support. This could be done not only to support partners to attend parental classes, but also to participate socially as well as engage with other expectant parents within the classes.

Reporting quality of the Delphi technique in reporting guidelines: a protocol for a systematic analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library

IntroductionReporting guidelines are important tools for improving the quality of medical research. The Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network’s Library contains a comprehensive and up-to-date database of reporting guidelines relevant to health research. Only 31% of reporting guidelines published from 2010 to 2014 reported using the Delphi technique, and the reporting quality of the Delphi technique in reporting guidelines is unknown even though the use of the Delphi technique was recommended in the guidance for reporting guidelines. We will assess the quality reports of the Delphi technique or modified Delphi technique in reporting guidelines.Methods and analysisThe present study is a systematic analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library. We will include all reporting guidelines in the EQUATOR Network that used the Delphi technique or modified Delphi technique, published since 1 January 2011 and registered in the EQUATOR on or before 31 May 2018. Our primary outcome is the reporting quality of the Delphi technique, measured by the quality score (each item) in the Delphi technique. We will also examine the relationship between the reporting quality score (each item) of the Delphi technique and year of publication, number of authors, impact factor, sources of funding (industry, non-industry), multiple publications and whether the guidelines are published in open access policy.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval will not be applicable for this study. This protocol has been registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and may also present them at conferences.Trial registration numberUMIN000032685.

Protocol of reporting items for public versions of guidelines: the Reporting Tool for Practice Guidelines in Health Care—public versions of guidelines

IntroductionPatient and public versions of guidelines (PVGs) can help with individual decision making and enhance the patient–clinician relationship by providing easily understandable and reliable information. An increasing number of guideline organisations are developing PVGs. However, the reporting of PVGs by different groups and organisations varies widely. This study aims to develop a reporting checklist for PVGs for healthcare.Methods and analysisWe will develop the PVG reporting checklist as an extension of the Reporting Tool for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement. We will build on the methods recommended by the EQUATOR network, which is our starting point. We will conduct a literature review, establish an international multidisciplinary team, run a modified Delphi process to identify the reporting items and pilot test the draft reporting checklist. We plan to update the checklist every 3 years.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval and patient consent are not required since this study will not undertake any formal data collection involving humans or animals. The results of this protocol will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.Trial registrationWe registered the protocol on the EQUATOR network (http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#84).

Artigo científico na área de saúde: diretrizes para sua elaboração e avaliação

<p><strong>Introdução: </strong>O aumento da velocidade, da diversidade e do volume das publicações científicas, tanto em escala global como no que diz respeito às pesquisas em saúde, tem levado a comunidade científica a reconhecer a necessidade do estabelecimento de critérios e padrões de qualidade para a avaliação, tanto do rigor metodológico, quanto das publicações. <strong>Objetivo</strong>: Ante o exposto, na perspectiva de subsidiar os pesquisadores na sua tarefa de qualificar sua produção, o presente artigo tem como objetivo apresentar, de forma sucinta, a descrição de algumas iniciativas que têm sido utilizadas, cada vez mais e por diferentes revistas científicas, como parâmetro para medir a qualidade dos artigos submetidos para publicação, segundo os tipos de estudo. <strong>Método</strong>: A base de consulta foi o <em>Equator Network</em> e as iniciativas selecionadas foram: STROBE, SAMPL, PROSPERO, AMSTAR, PRISMA, COREQ, SRQR. <strong>Conclusão: </strong>A rede <em>Equator Network, </em>com a finalidade de subsidiar a qualificação das pesquisas em saúde e da sua divulgação, contempla, nas suas diretrizes, diferentes tipos de investigação para que autores, revisores e editores disponham de elementos de verificação do rigor científico e do atendimento às recomendações de editores e revisores de periódicos científicos. </p>