ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022
#TheUglyTruth? A Qualitative Evaluation of Outcomes Photography on Instagram: Introducing the SEPIA Scoring System.
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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Results in a 'Flash': Recognizing Misleading Clinical Photography.Indian dermatology online journal · 2026Article
- Quality and Reliability of 2D and 3D Clinical Photographs in Plastic Surgery: A Scoping Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Customizing Microfocused Ultrasound With Visualization Treatment for Facial Lifting in Asian Men: Experience and Practical Insights From Korea.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
- Before-and-After Photography on Social Media: The Pursuit of Impossible Beauty.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Photographs of cosmetic treatment outcomes on social media are prone to bias and misrepresentation from nonadherence to established photographic standards. However, there is currently insufficient information regarding which norms are most-commonly violated, precluding quality improvement efforts. Methods: A qualitative study of cosmetic treatment photographs published on Instagram was undertaken in accordance with the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies using a newly proposed Standards for the Evaluation of Photographs In Aesthetics (SEPIA) nine-point photograph scoring system and grading scale. Results: A total of 510 posts encompassing 2020 clinical photographs published by 102 practitioner accounts on Instagram were audited for photographic quality. The average score was 4 out of 9 (medium quality), with approximately 40% of posts scoring in the low-quality range. Zoom, lighting, timing, and presentation of multiple views were the standards most-commonly disregarded. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery specialty and subspecialty (PRSS) practitioners scored higher (4.5/9 versus 3.1/9, Conclusions: Before and after photographs of surgical and nonsurgical cosmetic treatment outcomes on social media are frequently of substandard quality. This study outlines specific items frequently neglected in outcomes photography to assist practitioners in maximizing adherence to established standards of photography online.
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.