Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41714369›Full record

SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2026

CONSORT Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trials in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review.

Sebastian Mitchell, Yousif F Yousif, Ming Zien, Yasin Omer Memisoglu, Noor Al-Bassam, Yaqoob H Al Saidi, Herbert Yau Mai Ming, Mahir Yousuff, Hamid Reza Khademi Mansour, Kian Daneshi and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sebastian MitchellRoyal Infirmary of Edinburgh, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK. sebastian.mitchell@hotmail.co.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-6357-0053
Yousif F YousifDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ming ZienSchool of Medical Sciences, University of Science Malaysia, Gelugor, Malaysia.
Yasin Omer MemisogluUniversity of Central Lancashire, Preston, England, UK.
Noor Al-BassamUniversity of Central Lancashire, Preston, England, UK.
Yaqoob H Al SaidiMinistry of Health Oman, Muscat, Oman.
Herbert Yau Mai MingKwong Wah Hospital, Yau Ma Tei, Hong Kong.
Mahir YousuffUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, England, UK.
Hamid Reza Khademi MansourSchool of Medicine, Kings College London, London, England, UK.
Kian DaneshiSchool of Population Health and Medicine, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Ankur KhajuriaImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evaluating surgical interventions, yet adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines remains inconsistent. Transparent reporting is especially critical in rhinoplasty due to individualized outcomes and diverse surgical techniques. This systematic review assesses adherence to the CONSORT-NPT guidelines in rhinoplasty RCTs and identifies key reporting deficiencies.

methodsA systematic review following PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 guidelines was conducted. Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and MEDLINE were searched for rhinoplasty RCTs published between 2017 and 2024. Adherence to the 25-item CONSORT-NPT checklist was evaluated, and study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE framework. Descriptive statistics summarized compliance trends, and correlations with journal impact factor and author count were analyzed.

resultsNinety-seven studies met inclusion criteria, with a mean CONSORT adherence of 68.8%. Objectives (97.9%) and structured abstracts (94.8%) were well reported; however, trial registration (53.6%) and funding disclosures (51.5%) were inconsistently provided. Most trials were single center (94.8%), with limited participants (47.4% of studies enrolled 50 or fewer participants), reducing generalizability. No significant correlations emerged between CONSORT adherence and journal impact factor or author count. Most studies (68.8%) originated from the Middle East. Study quality was generally high or moderate according to GRADE, with predominantly low or moderate risk of bias.

conclusionAlthough CONSORT adherence in rhinoplasty RCTs is moderate, substantial gaps persist in trial registration, funding disclosure, and core methodological reporting. Strengthening enforcement of CONSORT guidelines is the foremost priority for improving research quality. Broader collaboration and geographic inclusion may support external validity but are secondary to rigorous reporting standards. Addressing these deficits will strengthen patient safety, reproducibility, and evidence-based counseling in rhinoplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Indexed as

Guideline AdherenceRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRhinoplastyHumansAesthetic surgeryConsolidated standards of reporting trialsRandomized control trialsRhinoplasty

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.