Abstract
Background:Qualitative research incorporates patients' voices into scientific literature. To date, there has been no formal review of qualitative research in plastic surgery. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of "breast specific" plastic surgery qualitative research. Secondary objectives were to record study methodology and examine associations between reporting quality and publication/journal characteristics. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Psychinfo, and PubMed were searched to identify qualitative studies in breast plastic surgery. Findings were presented with descriptive analysis. Reporting quality was evaluated using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR), a 21-item checklist. Results: Eighty studies were included. The median SRQR score was 17/21 (range: 6-21). The lowest reported SRQR items were qualitative approach (n = 29/80, 36%) and data collection method (n = 36/80, 45%). Nine (11%) studies described following a reporting guideline. Articles published in nursing journals had the highest average SRQR scores (18.4/21). There was no significant difference between studies published before or after the publication of SRQR (P = .06). Eighty-six percent of studies focused on patient experiences with breast reconstruction (n = 69/80). Conclusions: The introduction of the SRQR has not led to significant improvement in the reporting of qualitative research. Rationale for methodology was frequently missing. We recommend that investigators conducting qualitative research in breast plastic surgery ensure they provide a rationale for their methodology and become familiar with the SRQR reporting guideline.