ArticlePloS one2019
Development of a computer-aided design software for the quantitative evaluation of aesthetic damage.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rare association of anatomical variations of the atlas and the occipital in a case with cranial deformation.Anatomical science international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Concerns associated with the assessment of aesthetic damage or injury raise critical difficulties, such as the scarcity of methodology and standardization that may result in fundamental precepts to establish impartial forms of compensation and aiming the total reparation of bodily injury. The complexity of the aesthetic damage evaluation is associated with the confluence of legal and technical perspectives and expert subjectivity while conducting examination and writing a report. Experts face additional difficulties associated with the objectivity while assessing aesthetic damage, independently on its location or expert skills, due to complex details observed in these lesions. Another situation in the clinical area, doctors (mainly plastic surgeons) and dentists could show the improvement or not, of the aesthetic condition to the patients. In health related areas, the use of information technology has contributed to increase the number of appropriate diagnoses, besides promoting quality, efficiency and satisfaction to health care providers. In order to make this assessment more objective, a technological tool was developed to aid experts in the evaluation of aesthetic damage and report elaboration. The objective was to develop computer-aided design software for aesthetic damage quantification/evaluation that is accessible via internet to be applied as a complementary report on body aesthetic damage. The software uses as a parameter the AIPE method, translated transculturally from Spanish to Portuguese and English. The present study allowed the construction of open access auxiliary software for the evaluation of corporal aesthetic damage. Its use is facilitated by intuitive and interactive filling, and the text may be customized by the user. It transforms the report into PDF and saves all evaluations already done in its own file. Information is encrypted for added security and confidentiality. The software is available on website at https://www.aestheticdamage.com.
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.