Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35702539›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022

What Does "Dr. Google" Show Patients Searching for Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Photographs?

Krista M Nicklaus, Xiomara T Gonzalez, Koushalya Sachdev, Jun Liu, Deepti Chopra, Aubri S Hoffman, Summer E Hanson, Mia K Markey, Gregory P Reece

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Krista M NicklausDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Xiomara T GonzalezDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Koushalya SachdevDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Jun LiuDepartment of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.
Deepti ChopraDepartment of Psychiatry, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.
Aubri S HoffmanThe Value Institute for Health and Care, Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Summer E HansonSection of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Chicago Medicine and Biological Sciences; Chicago, Ill.
Mia K MarkeyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Gregory P ReeceDepartment of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.

Funding

3-D modeling-based decision support for optimizing quality of life following breast reconstructionR01CA203984 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI MARKEY, MIA K, MERCHANT, FATIMA AZIZ · 2016 to 2020
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA203984
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many women with breast cancer search the internet for photographs of their potential reconstruction outcomes, but little is known about the quality, variety, and relevance of images patients are viewing. Methods: Breast reconstruction outcome photographs identified by a Google Images search were assessed based on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons/Plastic Surgery Foundation photographic guidelines. Information such as source metadata, breast reconstruction procedure information, and subject demographics was collected from the photographs. Additional analyses were conducted to assess whether nipple reconstruction or tattooing occurred and was disclosed, whether a symmetry procedure was performed and disclosed, and whether donor site scarring is visible in abdominal flap photographs. Results: We acquired and analyzed 114 photograph sets. Although a variety of images were readily available, the majority of photograph sets did not follow photographic guidelines or provide sufficient information. Most photograph sets (60%) indicated symmetry procedures when a symmetry procedure was evident, but only 40% of photograph sets disclosed a nipple procedure when a nipple procedure was evident. Only 40% of abdominal flap photographs showed donor site scarring. Subject demographics were largely missing: 50% of photograph sets included subject age, 3% included race or ethnicity, and 12% included weight or BMI. Conclusions: Although breast reconstruction outcome photographs shown by "Dr. Google" represent a variety of reconstruction types, they typically lack information that a patient needs to assess self-applicability. Patients may benefit from discussion with their healthcare team about the strengths and limitations of breast reconstruction outcome photographs available on the internet.

Identifiers

PMID35702539
PMCPMC9187202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.