Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37313483›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023

Implant Size Selection on the Basis of Period, Parity, and Age: A 22-year Retrospective Analysis of 2591 Primary Augmentation Mammoplasties.

Umar Daraz Khan

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Umar Daraz KhanFrom the Reshape House, West Malling, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The size of implants can be selected objectively or subjectively. However, there is a lack of information on whether there is a change in the trend in implant size selection or whether the parity or the age can have an impact on the implant size used. Methods: A retrospective study to analyze implant size selection following primary augmentation was performed. Data were divided into three groups. Group A had mammoplasties between 1999 and 2011 (group 1) and 2011 and 2022, respectively (group A2). Groups B and C were divided on the basis of age and the number of children. Results: Group A1 included 1902 patients and group A2 included 689 patients. Group B included three subgroups: group B1 included 1345 patients who were 18-29 years old, group B2 included 1087 patients who were 30-45 years old, and group B3 had 127 patients who were 45 years or older. Group C included four subgroups: group C1 had 956 patients without children, group C2 had 422 patients who had one child, group C3 had 716 patients who had two children, and group C4 had 453 patients who had three or more children. Conclusions: The data showed that there was a trend toward larger size implants, and patients with children had larger implants than nulliparous patients. There was no difference seen in implant size used when patients were compared on the basis of age.

Identifiers

PMID37313483
PMCPMC10259642

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.