ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023
A National Survey of Perspectives of Physician Assistants in Academic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing and integrating physician assistants/associates in UK hospital teams: a realist review of lessons from international experiences.BMC medicine · 2025Review
- Continuous oxygen monitoring to enhance ex-vivo organ machine perfusion and reconstructive surgery.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physician assistants (PAs) are an essential part of the healthcare team who improve access and efficiencies in patient care. A better understanding of the impact and current utilization of PAs in plastic and reconstructive surgery is needed. The purpose of this national survey was to evaluate the role and scope of practice of PAs in academic plastic surgery, as well as characterize current trends of PA utilization, compensation, and perceived value from a PA perspective. Methods: A voluntary, anonymous 50-question survey was distributed via SurveyMonkey to practicing PAs at 98 academic plastic surgery programs. The survey included questions about employment characteristics, involvement in clinical research and academic work, structural organization, academic benefits, compensation, and position held. Results: Ninety-one PAs from 35 plastic surgery programs completed the survey and were included (overall program response rate = 36.8%, participants response rate = 30.4%). Practice environments included outpatient clinics, the operating room, and inpatient care. Most commonly, respondents supported multiple surgeons as opposed to one surgeon's practice. For 57% of respondents, compensation is based on a tiered system that accounts for specialty and experience. The reported mode base salary range corroborates national averages and most reported annual bonuses based on merit. The majority of respondents felt valued in their role. Conclusions: Through this national survey, we provide granularity as to how PAs are utilized and compensated in academic plastic surgery. We offer insight into the overall perceived value from a PA perspective that helps define the role and will ultimately help strengthen collaboration.
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.