ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Quality and Reliability of 2D and 3D Clinical Photographs in Plastic Surgery: A Scoping Review.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. 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.
- Testing the study protocol and interrater reliability of a new end-of-life wound assessment tool: a feasibility study.BMC palliative care · 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
backgroundClinical photography is a critical tool in plastic surgery practice. The primary aim of this scoping review was to assess the quality and reliability of various 2D and 3D photography modalities in plastic surgery.
methodsThe databases, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, and Scopus via Elsevier, were searched from inception to March 15, 2023, for any papers focused on evaluation of quality and/or reliability of photography in plastic surgery-related applications. Data regarding general article characteristics, study characteristics, participants, and study results were extracted by two reviewers and qualitatively synthesized.
resultsA total of 17 studies published from 1999 to 2023 were eligible for inclusion in the final analysis. Thirteen (76.5%) were cross-sectional and four (23.5%) were cohort studies. Photographed locations included craniomaxillofacial and oral (n = 11, 64.7%), scars (n = 3, 17.6%), breast and torso (n = 2, 11.8%), and wounds (n = 1, 5.9%). Assessed photographic modalities were found to be on par or better than comparators in almost all applicable cases (n = 13/14, 92.9%).
conclusionsMultiple photographic modalities were found to have adequate quality and reliability. 3D photography was found to be a superior imaging modality for craniomaxillofacial and oral applications. For scar and wound assessment and images of the breast and torso region, 2D photography was sufficient. Overall, 2D photography using smartphone devices is sufficient for reliable and quality images in most clinical settings. With continued advances in technology, the ability to capture clinical images will undoubtedly improve, and there is a need for future studies to assess and compare these modalities. 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
40016579What 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.