ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2020
Establishing Photographic Standards for Facial Transplantation: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2020. 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.
- The 2020 Facial Transplantation Update: A 15-Year Compendium.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Photography provides a means for objective assessment and dissemination of clinical information. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) and Plastic Surgery Foundation (PSF) published photography guidelines in 2006 to optimize its clinical use. However, photographic documentation of outcomes in facial transplantation (FT) continues to lack standardization. We therefore appraised the current state of FT photography in the peer-reviewed literature.
methodsA PubMed search was conducted from July 2005 to July 2019. Studies containing photographs of partial or full FT recipients were included. Non-English language articles, cadaveric and animal studies, technique papers, and case reports were excluded. Data were extracted from 91 articles. Adherence rates were calculated to determine whether published FT photographs followed ASPS/PSF guidelines. Proposed photographic standards particular to FT were then formulated to guide standardization of practice.
resultsOnly 28.6% (26/91) of articles adhered to the photographic conventions of preparation, positioning, and views. Of 162 patient appearances in the 91 articles, 95% (154/162) met the criteria for preparation, 98.8% (160/162) met the criteria for positioning, but only 24.7% (40/162) met the criteria for views.
conclusionsPhotographic documentation of FT outcomes in the peer-reviewed literature is limited, with inconsistent adherence to ASPS/PSF guidelines. There is substantial deficiency in provision of alternative views, with the majority of publications only depicting the frontal view. FT photography standards should specifically incorporate alternative views, proper lighting and framing, and elimination of distractions, and accommodate for remote patient self-photography. This will promote a transparent and consistent longitudinal evaluation of the surgical results.
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.