Systematic review of therapeutic nipple-sparing versus skin-sparing mastectomy.

Background: The use of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasing, despite unproven oncological safety in the therapeutic setting. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the safety and efficacy of NSM compared with skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM). Methods: A literature search of all original studies including RCTs, cohort studies and case-control studies comparing women undergoing therapeutic NSM or SSM for breast cancer was undertaken. Primary outcomes were oncological outcomes; secondary outcomes were clinical, aesthetic, patient-reported and quality-of-life outcomes. Data analysis was undertaken to explore the relationship between NSM and SSM, and preselected outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane tests. Results: A total of 690 articles were identified, of which 14 were included. There was no statistically significant difference in 5-year disease-free survival and mortality for NSM and SSM groups, where data were available. Local recurrence rates were also similar for NSM and SSM (3·9 versus 3·3 per cent respectively; P = 0·45). NSM had a partial or complete nipple necrosis rate of 15·0 per cent, and a higher complication rate than SSM (22·6 versus 14·0 per cent respectively). The higher overall complication rate was due to the rate of nipple necrosis in the NSM group (15·0 per cent). Conclusion: In carefully selected cases, NSM is a viable choice for women with breast cancer who need to have a mastectomy. More research is needed to help further refine which surgical approaches to NSM optimize outcomes.

Impact of the SCARE guideline on the reporting of surgical case reports: A before and after study.

INTRODUCTION: The SCARE guideline was developed in 2016 through an expert Delphi consensus exercise. It aimed to improve the quality of reporting of surgical case reports. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of introducing the SCARE guideline for surgical on reporting of case reports submitted to a single journal. METHODS: A total of 20 case reports published in the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports (IJSCR) and Annals of Medicine and Surgery (AMS) in July and August 2016, prior to the introduction of the SCARE guideline (the pre-SCARE period), were randomly identified and scored against the SCARE criteria. Two independent teams performed the scoring giving a total score out of a theoretical maximum of 34 for each case report, the 'SCARE score' (expressed as a percentage). The scores for the two teams were then compared and consensus was reached to achieve a final sore set. This process was repeated for the January and February 2017 issues of the journal, post implementation of the guideline (the post-SCARE period). SCARE scores were compared between the pre- and post-SCARE periods. RESULTS: The mean pre-SCARE score was 75.0% (standard deviation ± 6.29, Range 62-84), and the mean post-SCARE score was 82.6% (standard deviation ± 8.02, range 66-99), a 10% relative increase in compliance which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The Cohen's Kappa score between teams A and B was 0.871, implying very substantial agreement. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the SCARE guideline resulted in a 10% improvement in the reporting quality of surgical case reports published in a single journal. Adherence to SCARE reporting guidelines by authors, reviewers and editors should be improved to boost reporting quality. Journals should develop their policies, submission processes and guide for authors to incorporate the guideline.

Impact of the PROCESS guideline on the reporting of surgical case series: A before and after study.

INTRODUCTION: The PROCESS guideline was developed in 2016 through expert Delphi consensus. It aimed to improve the quality of reporting of surgical case series. This study assessed the impact of the introduction of the PROCESS guideline on reporting for surgical case series submitted to three journals. METHODS: 20 case series published in the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports (IJSCR), the International Journal of Surgery (IJS) or the Annals of Medicine and Surgery (AMS) in September to December 2016, prior to the introduction of the PROCESS guideline (the pre-PROCESS period), were randomly identified and scored against the PROCESS criteria. Two authors independently scored each article a total score out of 29, the 'PROCESS score' (expressed as a percentage). Scores for the two researchers were compared and consensus was reached to achieve a final score set. The process was repeated for the January 2017 to April 2017 issues of the three journals, post PROCESS implementation (the post-PROCESS period). RESULTS: The mean PROCESS score was 80% (range 66-90%) for the pre-PROCESS period and 84% (range 72-95%) for the post-PROCESS period, a 4% relative increase [STATS]. The Cohen's Kappa score between researchers was 0.907 implying very substantial agreement. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the PROCESS guideline resulted in a 5% improvement in the reporting quality of surgical case series published in three journals. Further research is needed to identify and successfully navigate existing barriers to greater compliance. Authors, reviewers and editors should adhere to the guidelines to boost reporting quality. Journals should develop their policies and guide for authors to incorporate the guideline and mandate compliance.

An assessment of the compliance of Randomised controlled trials published in craniofacial surgery journals with the CONSORT statement: A systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The role of clinical trials in medicine is expanding, particularly in surgery. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard evidence for high-quality assessment of healthcare interventions. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidance has been published to maximise RCT reporting transparency. This paper outlines the study protocol for a systematic review that will assess the current compliance of RCTs published within craniofacial surgery with the CONSORT criteria. The aims are to identify areas where reporting can be improved to ensure craniofacial surgery is guided by high-quality evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and meta-Analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Craniofacial surgery RCTs will be identified by searching within craniofacial surgery journals. Five journals from the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor Report 2016 included 'cranio' in their title and were included. MEDLINE PubMed will be used to search all RCTs published in these journals. The search strategy is described within this protocol. It will be limited to articles written in English, conducted on humans, and published in the last five years. Two independent researchers will assess each study for inclusion and will perform the data extraction. The researchers will assess compliance of each RCT with the 25-item CONSORT Statement checklist as the primary outcome. Discrepancies will be resolved through consensus or third author arbitration. Secondary outcomes to be extracted include the pathology and interventions examined, and indices of RCT quality. The systematic review will be compliant with PRISMA guidelines. The review has been registered a priori with the Registry of Systematic Reviews/meta-analyses (UIN: reviewregistry219). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will be conducted in line with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and Interventions. The intent is to publish in a peer-reviewed journal and present the data at relevant conferences.