ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2023
Definitions of Abnormal Breast Size and Asymmetry: A Cohort Study of 400 Women.
Article 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 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Difference in breast size between the first and third trimesters of pregnancy and changes in a woman's body size, subcutaneous fat tissue, and biochemical parameters.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Modified Superomedial Pedicle Breast Reduction Technique for Cases with SN-N Distance Exceeding 33 cm.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- A study on the correlation between MRI-assessed breast volume asymmetry and patient satisfaction after immediate breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of Postoperative Breast Asymmetry Using Vectra 3D Imaging in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMacromastia, micromastia and breast asymmetry have an impact on health and quality of life. However, there is scarce information addressing breast size and asymmetry frequency distribution in reference populations.
objectiveThe current study aims to identify factors that influence breast size and symmetry and classifies abnormal breast sizes and breast asymmetries in an adult German population.
methodsBreast base dimensions, breast volume, symmetry, and other breast anthropometric parameters of 400 German female patients were determined in a retrospective review of the MRI archives at our institution. Professional medical MRI-segmentation software was used for volume measurement.
resultsA total of 400 Patients were retrospectively enrolled. The patients had a mean age of 50 ± 12 years (min: 24; max: 82), mean BMI of 25.0 ± 5.0 (min: 14.7, max: 45.6), and a mean total breast volume of 976 ml (right: 973 ml, min: 64, max: 4777; left: 979 ml, min: 55, max: 4670). The strongest correlation of breast volume was observed with BMI (r = 0.834, p < 0.001), followed by breast base width (r = 0.799, p < 0.001). Smaller breasts have higher breast volume asymmetry ratios (r = - 0.124, p < 0.014). For a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m
conclusionThis study provides normative data of German women, as well as selected size-for-BMI percentiles and asymmetry ratio percentiles. The normative data may help to establish transparent and objective coverage criteria for health insurances. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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
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.