ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2022
Optimize Your First Impression: A Comparison of the Aesthetic Websites of Private Practices and Academic Institutions.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn aesthetic surgery offering within academic programs has positive financial and educational implications. To compete with private practices, academic institutions must view their website as integral to patient recruitment.
objectiveThis study examines the aesthetic surgery websites of academic and private practices to compare objective website characteristics.
methodsIntegrated plastic surgery programs with an aesthetic surgery website were matched with nearby private practices offering cosmetic surgery. Data was collected from websites, including information about procedures, media, surgeon characteristics, design, reputation, finances, and readability, and compared using Chi-square and T tests.
resultsThe websites of 68 academic institutions (AP) and 68 location-matched private practices (PP) were examined. Fourteen (17.07%) programs did not have a website. Private practice websites provided information about a greater number of procedures (mean AP 21.82, PP 27.04, p = 0.013), preparation for surgery (AP 52.94%, PP 83.82%, p < 0.001), and expectations after surgery (AP 70.59%, PP 88.24%, p = 0.01). Board certification was listed more frequently for private practices (AP 87%, PP 98%, p = 0.01). Academic websites were more likely to discuss research (AP 76%, PP 57.35%, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the readability of AP and PP websites (mean SMOG AP 7.70, PP 7.19, p = 0.06).
conclusionsThis work demonstrates a significant content gap between private and academic aesthetic websites and serves as an action item for institutions to enhance their online presence. In a field traditionally associated with high overhead costs, website modifications represent a cost-effective way for academic practices to increase their appeal in the cosmetic surgery market. 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
35545704What 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.