ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023
Content and Readability of Online Recommendations for Breast Implant Size Selection.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging the Gap: A Pilot Study Using Artificial Intelligence to Make Plastic Surgery Research Accessible.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Reliability and Accuracy of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Providing General Information on Migraine Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Readability of Patient Education Materials in Plastic Surgery: Assessing 14 Years of Progress.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Readability of Patient-reported Outcome Measures Used in Plastic Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Class in Session: Analysis of GPT-4-created Plastic Surgery In-service Examination Questions.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Research design and writing of scholarly articles: new artificial intelligence tools available for researchers.Endocrine · 2024Article
- Blepharoplasty Online: Critical Analysis of Content and Patient Comprehensibility.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- The Primacy of Ethics in Aesthetic Medicine: A Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Postoperative Care: Assessing Large Language Models for Patient Recommendations in Plastic Surgery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Plastic Surgery or Facial Plastic Surgery: Can the Public Tell the Difference?Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Validation of ChatGPT 3.5 as a Tool to Optimize Readability of Patient-facing Craniofacial Education Materials.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
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
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.