ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2021
Getting to the Bottom of Patient Experiences with Genital Gender Affirmation Surgery: A Qualitative Analysis of Online Reviews.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-Reported LASIK Outcomes on RealSelf: a Social Media Review Platform.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients undergoing gender-affirming surgery seek information from online sources including online reviews written by peers. We aimed to conduct a qualitative analysis of the information discussed in online reviews related to genital gender-affirming surgery and evaluate the topics driving positive/negative reviews.
methodsReviews for genital gender-affirming surgery (vaginoplasty, metoidioplasty, and phalloplasty) were identified on three popular review platforms: Google, Yelp, and RealSelf. Content was analyzed line by line using a conventional inductive content analysis to identify recurring themes. Individual statements were marked as either having a positive or negative sentiment. Median rating was calculated and compared across platforms (max score 5). Associations between theme/subthemes and sentiment were also analyzed using Chi-squared test.
resultsA total of 129 reviews were analyzed and 433 codes were identified, the majority of which were positive (n=372; 85.9%). Three overarching themes described factors important to patient experience: surgeon medical, surgeon non-medical, and non-surgeon; with surgeon medical being the most popular. Fifteen subthemes comprised these themes, the most popular being interactions with supporting staff, surgeon bedside manner, and overall postoperative result. There was no difference in median review ratings between platforms (5 across all platforms; p=0.452). There was no association between sentiment and themes or subthemes (p=0.187 and p=0.578, respectively).
conclusionsThis study is the first to analyze online reviews of genital gender-affirming surgery. The majority of patients gave positive ratings and the qualitative content had mostly positive sentiment. Salient themes not only include surgeon medical care and outcome, but other nonsurgical elements that formulate the patient's experience as a whole. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
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.