Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30109166›Full record

ArticleCureus2018

Evaluation of Information Sources in Plastic Surgery Decision-making.

Nisha Parmeshwar, Chris M Reid, Andrew J Park, Michael G Brandel, Marek K Dobke, Amanda A Gosman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Plastic Surgery or Facial Plastic Surgery: Can the Public Tell the Difference?Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. COVID-19 and Digital Health: Evolution, Perspectives and Opportunities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  9. Estimating Patient Empowerment and Nurses' Use of Digital Strategies: eSurvey Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

6 authors.

Nisha ParmeshwarSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, USA.
Chris M ReidDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, USA.
Andrew J ParkSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, USA.
Michael G BrandelDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, USA.
Marek K DobkeDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, USA.
Amanda A GosmanDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Today, patients can access a myriad of information sources regarding plastic surgery procedures prior to meeting with a surgeon. Despite their widespread use, the role of these sources in a patient's decision-making remains undefined. We hypothesized that the physician remains the key information source for patients making surgical decisions in plastic surgery, but that other sources may deliver important insights and prove helpful to varying degrees. We also explored motivations for this outside information search and any differences in perceived value among patients. Methods We administered a survey regarding various information sources to our breast reconstruction, reduction, and abdominoplasty patients. Responses were compared between surgery groups and demographic groups. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to determine the impact of patient characteristics on helpfulness rank of different sources. Results Survey results were obtained from 58 patients, of whom 10 (17.2%) had abdominoplasty, 35 (60.3%) breast reconstruction, and 13 (22.4%) breast reduction. The most popular information sources prior to the first surgical appointment were Internet searches (56.9%) and family/friends/other patients (39.7%). After the initial appointment, the most useful sources were plastic surgeons (84.5%), and the Internet (36.2%). Most patients (73.5%) still sought outside information after their appointment. On a Likert-type scale of helpfulness, plastic surgeons ranked 4.28/5, followed by the web-based patient education platform, 3.73 and the Internet, 3.6. A total of 63% of participants listed plastic surgeons as their single most important source of information. In ordinal logistic regression analysis, non-white race was significantly associated with higher rank of surgeon helpfulness (p < 0.05). Relative to low-income patients, income $50-100k (p < 0.05) and $100k+ (p < 0.05) were associated with lower rank of surgeon helpfulness. Conclusions Most patients seek outside information prior to visiting with a surgeon from the Internet, social media, or family and friends. Patients consider plastic surgeons their most valuable information source overall, though still in need of supplementation for varying reasons. Additionally, certain demographic differences affect patient perception of information sources, and this is an important factor for surgeons to consider as they approach educating patients.

Indexed as

informed consentinternetpatient educationpatient satisfactionplastic surgery information sourcesweb-based education

Identifiers

PMID30109166
PMCPMC6084688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 OpenQuestion graph.