Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37033450›Full record

ReviewAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2023

The New Era of Marketing in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Algorithm of Social Media and Digital Marketing.

Orr Shauly, Troy Marxen, Pedram Goel, Daniel J Gould

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Instagram Versus Reality: Who Are Actually Plastic Surgeons?Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Primacy of Ethics in Aesthetic Medicine: A Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emory University · USKeck Hospital of USC · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social media has been demonstrated to serve as a critical tool for plastic surgeons, facilitating patient engagement, peer-to-peer education and learning, and outreach to the broader public community. This study aims to perform a meta-analysis of data to determine the most valuable and useful social media platforms for practicing plastic surgeons developing their practice by assessing the perceived value to the practice and quantifying return on investment. A systematic review was performed using PubMed (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD). The initial search yielded 3592 articles. Sixteen articles met inclusion and exclusion criteria. It was found that patients are more likely to engage with aesthetic content rather than scientific content. Younger generations are more likely to utilize Instagram (Meta, Menlo Park, CA), Snapchat (Santa Monica, CA), and TikTok (Culver City, CA), while older generations may be more likely to utilize Facebook (Meta, Menlo Park, CA) and YouTube (San Bruno, CA). Age-specific recommendations include utilizing Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok with emphasis on breast augmentation for patients aged 17 and 35 given this is the most common procedure performed for this age group. Patients between the ages of 36 and 70 are most likely to be engaged on Facebook, Instagram, and Facebook with liposuction being the most common procedure in this age group. For ages 70+, patients are most likely to utilize Facebook with the most common procedure performed as blepharoplasty. Effective social media marketing for the plastic surgeon considers delivering the right content and choosing the right platform. The right content and platform are critically dependent on the specific age of the audience. Level of Evidence 3:

Identifiers

PMID37033450
PMCPMC10078152
OpenAlexW4322486992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.