SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2024
A Systematic Review on the Reinforcement Loop in Aesthetic Medicine and Surgery: The Interplay of Social Media, Self-Perception, and Repeat Procedures.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Rhinoplasty on Female Sexual Function, Self-esteem, and Depressive Symptoms, in Sexually Active Married Women.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Addiction to Cosmetic Procedures: A Scoping Literature Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Psychological and Sociodemographic Insights into Self-Esteem and Social Media Influence Among Rhinoplasty Candidates.Psychiatry and clinical psychopharmacology · 2025Article
- Social Media Engagement Among Oculoplastic Surgeons in India: Patterns and Perceptions.Cureus · 2025Article
- The Impact of Social Media & Technology on Child and Adolescent Mental Health.Journal of psychiatry and psychiatric disorders · 2025Article
- Perceptual Congruence.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis systematic review delves into the impact of social media on self-perception and the escalating interest in clinical aesthetic procedures, proposing that social media significantly influences beauty standards and increases demand for aesthetic enhancements.
methodFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a mixed-method analysis of 34 articles was conducted, sourced from various databases, focusing on social media's psychological effects on clinical aesthetics decisions. The studies encompassed a broad spectrum, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodologies, reflecting diverse geographical and cultural perspectives.
resultsThe quantitative analysis demonstrated a strong positive correlation between social media usage and the consideration of aesthetic procedures (r=0.45, p<0.001), indicating a significant impact. Specific findings included a large effect size (Cohen's d=0.8) for the relationship between time spent on social media and the desire for aesthetic enhancements. Individuals spending more than 3 hours per day on social media platforms were twice as likely to consider aesthetic procedures compared to those with less usage, with a 95% confidence interval indicating robustness in these findings.
conclusionConfirming the reinforcing effect of social media on aesthetic decision-making, this study highlights the complex interplay between digital media exposure, altered self-perception, and the increased inclination towards aesthetic procedures. It suggests a critical need for practitioners to carefully navigate the digital influence on patient's desires, reinforcing the significance of understanding psychological motivations and societal pressures in clinical aesthetics. This comprehensive analysis offers pivotal insights for clinical practice and ongoing research into social media's role in contemporary beauty standards. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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
38724639What 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.