ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023
Six Years of Complaints Issued by Patients at a Laser Treatment Center in a Plastic Surgery Hospital.
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.
- Beyond the scalpel: humanistic training and professional identity formation in postgraduate plastic surgery education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Impact of hospital complaint handling on promoting high-quality development of hospitals via an emotional language analysis model: a case study of a tertiary hospital service center in Quanzhou city, Fujian province.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
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
Background: Patient complaints can provide valuable feedback regarding the objective deficiencies of medical services. There are few studies on the complaints of patients receiving photoelectric therapy, so this study aims to understand the expectations and requirements of patients by analyzing the complaints of patients receiving photoelectric therapy. Methods: The complaints of patients who underwent photoelectric therapy were retrospectively examined. Authors plan to analyze treatment items, complaint contents, appeals, time trend regarding the number of complaints, and economic compensation. Results: Fifty-four patients were involved in the study in total, and all of them were included. According to the standardized coding classification of complaints by Reader et al., the number of clinical, management and relationship complaints were 36 (59.02%), 14 (22.95%), and 11 (18.03%), respectively. These were divided among the categories of quality (31.15%), safety (27.87%), institutional issues (22.95%), communication (8.20%), and humaneness/caring (9.84%); with the most common subcategories involving treatment (31.15%) and safety incidents (24.59%). The patients' demands involved 20 cases (32.26%) requesting a refund of their medical expenses, 16 (25.81%) issuing a warning, 15 (24.19%) requesting compensation for loss, 10 (16.13%) requiring free repair or consultation, and 1 (1.61%) demanding an apology. Eventually, financial compensation was provided to the patients in eight of the cases. At a significance level of Conclusions: Patient complaints in photoelectric therapy were most commonly clinical in nature. Specifically, quality and safety concerns are the main complaints.
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.