Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39993841›Full record

ArticleMedical humanities2025

Listening to face transplant patients and caregivers: how medical humanities approaches redefine surgical 'success'.

Fay Bound Alberti, Dallas Weins, Annalyn Bell Weins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical humanities, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Fay Bound AlbertiHistory, King's College London, London, UK fay.bound_alberti@kcl.ac.uk.
Dallas WeinsFort Worth, Texas, Forth Worth, Texas, USA.
Annalyn Bell WeinsFort Worth, Texas, Forth Worth, Texas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recent review of face transplants argues that overall, they have been successful. But this verdict is based on surgical measures rather than patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), which for historical reasons are in their infancy. These measures are critical to understanding the nature of success in face transplants, and the evidence from mixed systems of healthcare, as in the USA, reveals that there are significant ethical and social concerns about the well-being of patients. Medical humanities research that focuses on the lived experience of patients and their caregivers can contribute significantly to the discussion by focusing on patient voices and the measures that matter outside of surgical contexts. This article builds on existing work and original interviews with face transplant recipients and their families from an emotion history perspective. It argues that surgical measures used in isolation can be misleading. We need a more holistic understanding of outcomes-financial, psychological and emotional as well as medical-that requires the insights drawn from the humanities and transforms the definition and measurement of 'success'.

Indexed as

CaregiversFacial TransplantationHumanitiesTransplant RecipientsEmotionsFemaleHumansPatient Reported Outcome Measurescultural historyEthicsMedical humanitiespatient narrativespsychology

Identifiers

PMID39993841
PMCPMC11877081

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.