Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36699215›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023

Content and Readability of Online Recommendations for Breast Implant Size Selection.

James E Fanning, Lauren A Okamoto, Emma C Levine, Shayan A McGee, Jeffrey E Janis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Readability of Patient-reported Outcome Measures Used in Plastic Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Primacy of Ethics in Aesthetic Medicine: A Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Plastic Surgery or Facial Plastic Surgery: Can the Public Tell the Difference?Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024
    Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

James E FanningRobert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt.
Lauren A OkamotoRobert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt.
Emma C LevineDepartment of General Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
Shayan A McGeeDepartment of General Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Hanover, N.H.
Jeffrey E JanisDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast augmentation is one of the most frequently performed aesthetic procedures in the United States. Online information is often used by patients to make decisions when undergoing cosmetic procedures. It is vital that online medical information includes relevant decision-making factors and uses language that is understandable to broad patient audiences. Ideally, online resources should aid patient decisions in aesthetic surgical planning, especially implant size selection for breast augmentation. We describe patient decision-making factors and readability of breast implant size selection recommended by private practice plastic surgery webpages. Methods: Using a depersonalized, anonymous query to Google search engine, the terms "breast implant size factors" and "breast implant size decision" were searched, and 52 plastic surgery private practice webpages were identified. Webpages were analyzed for reported decision-making factors of implant size selection. Readability analyses of webpages were performed with Readability Studio and Hemingway Editor. Results: The two major decision-making factors for implant size selection reported by webpages were body/tissue-based measurements and surgeon input. Ten factors related to patient lifestyle, surgical goals, and procedural options were also identified. Average webpage scores for five readability measures exceeded recommended levels for medical information. Conclusions: Reported decision-making factors for implant size selection emphasize a plastic surgeon's expertise but may enhance the patient's role in preoperative planning. Webpages describing breast implant size selection exceed the sixth and eighth grade reading levels recommended by the AMA and NIH, respectively. Improving the readability of webpages will refine the role of online medical information in preoperative planning of breast augmentation.

Identifiers

PMID36699215
PMCPMC9872969

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.