ArticleEplasty2024
Have We Really Shifted to an Evidence-Based Practice? A Qualitative Analysis of Primary Breast Augmentation.
Article in Eplasty, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Global Perspectives in Plastic Surgery: View of Plastic Surgeons From Ecuador.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Primary breast augmentation remains the most frequently performed aesthetic surgery worldwide. Advances in this surgery have been incredible, not only from a surgical technique point of view but also since the appearance of new technologies and the better understanding of the interactions between the patient, the breast implant, the usual bacterial flora, and surgical maneuvers. However, there are still several instances of surgical procedure or postoperative medical indications that differ remarkably from one surgeon to another and may even be totally opposite. Due to the lack of a clinical practice guide for performing a primary augmentation mastoplasty, it is important to compare surgeon's procedures and decisions with scientific evidence. Methods: An anonymous survey composed of 25 multiple choice questions was designed to assess current practice in primary breast augmentation among active members of the Argentinian Society of Plastic Surgery. In January 2020, it was distributed via email. The results of the surveys were compiled by 2 independent reviewers and contrasted with current medical evidence. Results: A total of 146 surveys were completed by members of the Argentinian Society of Plastic Surgery. Conclusion: Many differences were found in the behavior of the surgeons surveyed, as well as a lack of correlation between the evidence based on medicine and the usual medical practices or indications. These results should serve as the basis for the realization of a clinical practice guide from a scientific society of plastic surgeons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39474006PMC11520359What 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.