The levels of evidence (LOE) table has been increasingly used by many surgical journals and societies to emphasize the importance of proper study design. Since their origin, LOE have evolved to consider multiple study designs and also the rigour of not only the study type but multiple aspects of its design. The use of LOE aids readers in appraising the literature while encouraging clinical researchers to produce high-quality evidence. The current article discusses the benefits and limitations of the LOE, as well as the LOE of articles published in the Canadian Journal of Plastic Surgery (CJPS). Along with an assessment of the LOE in the CJPS, the authors have provided recommendations to improve the quality and readability of articles published in the CJPS.
GodleeF. Milestones on the long road to knowledge.BMJ2007; 334(Suppl 1):S2–S3.
2.
SackettDLStrausSERichardsonWS. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM, 2nd edn.Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
3.
GuyattGRennieD, eds. Users' Guides To the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice.Chicago: American Medical Association, 2002.
4.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Health Care Systems: Efficiency and Policy Settings.Paris: OECD Publishing, 2010.
World Health Organization.The world health report – Health systems financing: The path to universal coverage.Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010. <www.who.int/whr/2010/en/index.html> (Accessed January 26, 2012).
Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre. How to read clinical journals. I: Why to read them and how to start reading them critically.CMAJ1981; 124: 555–8.
9.
The periodic health examination. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination.CMAJ1979; 121: 1193–254.
10.
SackettDL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents.Chest1989; 95(Suppl 2):2S–4S.
HowickJChalmersIGlasziouP. Explanation of the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence (Background Document).Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. <www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653> (Accessed November 29, 2011).
SchünemannHJVistGEJaeschkeRKunzRCookDJGuyattGH. Grading recommendations. In: GuyattGRennieDMeadeMOCookD eds. User's Guides to the Medical Literature. A Manual for Evidence-based Clinical Practice, 2nd edn.New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008: 679–701.
15.
AtkinsDBestDBrissPA. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations – GRADE Working Group.BMJ2004; 328: 1490.
16.
GuyattGHVistGFalck-YtterYKunzRMagriniNSchünemannHJ. An emerging consensus on grading recommendations?ACP J Club2006; 144: A8–A9.
17.
BrouwersMCKhoMEBrowmanG. AGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care.CMAJ2010; 182: E839–42
18.
VlayenJAertgeertsBHannesKSermeusWRamaekersD. A systematic review of appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: Multiple similarities and one common deficit.Int J Qual Health Care2005; 17: 235–42.
19.
BrouwersMCDe VitoCBahirathanL. Effective interventions to facilitate the uptake of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: An implementation guideline.Implementation Sci2011; 29: 112.
20.
LoiselleFMahabirRCHarropAR. Levels of evidence in plastic surgery research over 20 years.Plast Reconstr Surg2008; 121: 207e–211e.
21.
HanzlikSMahabirRCBaynosaRCKhiabaniKT. Levels of evidence in research published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) over the last thirty years.J Bone Joint Surg Am2009; 91: 425–8.
22.
ChubackJEYarascavitchBAEavesFIIIThomaABhandariM. Evidence in the aesthetic surgical literature over the past decade: How far have we come?Plast Reconstr Surg2012; 129: 126e–34e.
23.
ChangEYPannucciCJWilkinsEG. Quality of clinical studies in aesthetic surgery journals: A 10-year review.Aesthet Surg J2009; 29: 144–7.
24.
BhandariMRichardsRRSpragueSSchemitschE. The quality of reporting of randomized trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [Am] from 1988-2000.J Bone Joint Surg Am2002; 84: 388–96.
25.
KarriV. Randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery: Survey of output and quality of reporting.J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg2006; 59: 787–96.
26.
McCarthyJEChatterjeeAMcKelveyTGJatzenEMKerriganCL. A detailed analysis of Level I evidence (randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses) in five plastic surgery journals to date: 1978 to 2009.Plast Reconstr Surg2010; 126: 1774–8.
27.
MomeniABeckerAAntesGDienerMBluemleAStarkBG. Evidence-based plastic surgery: Controlled trials in three plastic surgery journals (1990 to 2005).Ann Plast Surg2009; 62: 293–6.
28.
MoherDCookDJEastwoodSOlkinIRennieDStroupDF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyes.Lancet1999; 354: 1896–900.
29.
StroupDFBerlinJAMortonSC. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.JAMA2000; 283: 2008–12.
30.
MoherDSchulzKFAltmanD CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials.JAMA2001; 285: 1987–91.
31.
von ElmEAltmanDGEggerMPocockSJGøtzschePCVandenbrouckeJP. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies.BMJ2007; 335: 806–8.
32.
CoroneosCJIgnacyTAThomaA. Designing and reporting case series in plastic surgery.Plast Reconstr Surg2011; 128: 361e–368e.
WoodLEggerMGluudLL. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: Meta-epidemiological study.BMJ2008; 336: 601–5.
