Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37592145›Full record

ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2024

The Ethics and Responsibilities of Social Media Usage by Plastic Surgeons: A Literature Review.

Paul Oregi, Naveen Cavale, Manaf Khatib, Shakeel M Rahman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Ethical Dilemmas in Plastic Surgery: Insights From a Survey Study in Saudi Arabia.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Fantasies and Fallacies of 'Aesthetic' Instagrammers.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India · 2024
    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.

Paul OregiGKT School of Medical Education, King's College London, London, UK. paul.oregi@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8471-6855
Naveen CavaleKing's College Hospital and Guy's and St.Thomas' Hospitals, London, UK.
Manaf KhatibLister Hospital - East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Stevenage, UK.
Shakeel M RahmanGuy's and St.Thomas' Hospitals, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesSocial media has revolutionised how plastic surgeons advertise their work and promote their services, but concerns have been raised regarding the ethics of these practices. This review aims to identify said concerns and develop measures to address them.

methodsPubMed, Cochrane and Medline were searched for studies assessing the ethics of social media use by plastic surgeons. Five search terms were used and 23 studies identified. Results were catalogued according to which principle of medical ethics was infringed.

resultsAutonomy: Patients must not be coerced into allowing their operative media to be shared and content anonymised by removing identifiable features and scrubbing metadata. Beneficence: It is difficult to balance the benefit to patients of posting photographs for educational purposes with the risk of identifiable features being present, particularly within craniofacial surgery. Non-maleficence: Taking operative media could be a distraction from the patient and lengthen the procedure which could lead to harm. Any content posted on social media should be adapted to avoid trivialisation or sexualisation. Justice: Surgeons should not entertain their audience to increase their following at the expense of patients.

conclusionsGreater oversight of social media use by plastic surgeons is required to avoid patient harm and tarnishing of the specialty's professional standing. Professional bodies should be tasked with devising a course dedicated to the responsible use of these platforms. This should ensure the public's trust in the specialty does not become eroded and patients are not harmed by unethical social media use. This review highlights the relevant shortfalls of SoMe use by plastic surgery Several proposals are made to reduce the incidence of these shortfalls and to ensure SoMe is used in a professional and responsible manner It also lists areas of the specialty where SoMe is underused and could be of help, such as academia 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 http://www.springer.com/00266 .

Indexed as

Plastic Surgery ProceduresSocial MediaSurgeonsSurgery, PlasticHumansIncidenceEthicsMedicolegalProfessionalismSocial media

Identifiers

PMID37592145
PMCPMC10917849

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.