Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34121945›Full record

ReviewSeminars in plastic surgery2021

Revision Breast Augmentation.

Brad D Denney, Alvin B Cohn, Jeremy W Bosworth, Pallavi A Kumbla

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in plastic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Robot-Assisted Breast Augmentation.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Brad D DenneyDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Alvin B CohnDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Jeremy W BosworthDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Pallavi A KumblaDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
University of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast augmentation is consistently one of the most commonly performed aesthetic operations every year. Unfortunately, revision rates following primary augmentation remain as high as 36%. There are several causes for revision breast augmentation; however, the most common and challenging of these include capsular contracture, implant malposition, and ptosis of the aging breast following augmentation. Successful management of these problems requires knowledge on how to best treat the implant and capsule with the corresponding soft tissue simultaneously. While surgical management is important, understanding the pathological causes of these entities during the primary operation can reduce the need for revision. This article utilizes the most up-to-date literature to review the appropriate clinical evaluation and surgical management of these complex cases.

Indexed as

breast ptosiscapsular contractureimplant malpositionrevision breast augmentationsecondary breast augmentation

Identifiers

PMID34121945
PMCPMC8186996
OpenAlexW3169779387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.