SynthesisChinese medical journal2019
Methods used for evaluation of volume retention rate in autologous fat grafting for breast augmentation: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Chinese medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Streamlining the Fat: A Systematic Review of Active Closed Wash and Filtration in Autologous Fat Grafting After Breast Reconstruction.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2023Pooled it
- Autologous Fat Graft Combined With Botulinum Toxin A Injection for Facial Sunken Deformity Treatment: A Retrospective Clinical Analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Essentials for optimizing outcomes in oncoplastic breast reconstruction.Gland surgery · 2026Review
- Recent advances in volume retention and evaluation methods of fat grafting for breast reconstruction.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Breast Reconstruction- Developing a Volumetric Outcome Algorithm.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2022Article
- External Volume Expansion: Timing and Effects on the Rate of Fat Graft Retention in BALB/c Nude Mice.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutologous fat grafting has gained popularity in breast augmentation. Various methods can be used to estimate the volume retention rate. This systematic review aimed to establish whether the type of method used for measuring breast volume is a factor that influences the reported volume retention rate.
methodsStudies were identified using the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from inception of the database up to February 2019. Articles describing autologous fat grafting for breast augmentation were selected based on pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The characteristics of the included studies were summarized, and the reported volume retention rate from the studies was compared. A quality assessment of all included articles was performed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies criteria.
resultsA total of 618 articles were identified, of which 12 studies, with a total of 1337 cases, were eligible. The retention rate of injected adipose tissue varied when the method of fat grafting and volume analysis used were both the same, as well as when the method of fat grafting was the same but the method of volumetric evaluation used was different.
conclusionsCurrently, the tools available for estimating the volume retention rate come with limitations. In order to objectively evaluate the percentage of graft retention, a standard protocol that applies to the different methods should be established in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.