ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2023
Defining Our Terms: Are Postoperative Complications Adequately Defined in the Rhinoplasty Literature?
Review in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vertical Zig-Zag Greenstick Osteotomy: A Novel Technique for Precise Nasal Bone Deformity Correction.Archives of plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Letter on Defining Our Terms: Are Postoperative Complications Adequately Defined in the Rhinoplasty Literature?Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRhinoplasty is one of the most common aesthetic surgical procedures, and yet its postoperative complication profile remains somewhat ill-defined and underreported. The purpose of this study was to examine the quality of complication reporting in the rhinoplasty literature and provide a framework for future complication classification.
methodsStudies were identified from a previously published 2019 systematic review conducted at Duke University Medical Center. Each included study was again reviewed to determine the reported complications and definitions. Reported complications were analyzed to determine occurrence rate, definition presence/absence, definition location, subjectivity/objectivity, and presence of severity grading system.
resultsA total of 30 studies were included. Overall, 63% (n = 19) of studies failed to provide a single definition for any reported complications. The remaining 11 studies (37%) provided at least one definition for their reported complications. Grading/severity scales were included by 8 studies. A specific complication was identified as a "primary outcome" in 15 cases. Definitions were included for 11 (73%) of these 15 complications. Complications denoted as "primary outcomes" were significantly more likely to have an included definition (p <0.01).
conclusionsPostoperative complications following rhinoplasty are inadequately defined in the available literature, with over sixty percent of studies failing to define a single-reported complication. When complication definitions are included, they are often subjective in nature and rarely include a grading or severity scale. In the absence of standardized rhinoplasty complication definitions, comparing complication rates across studies is exceedingly difficult, and the ability to conduct high-quality meta-analyses is limited. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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
36307563What 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.