ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Patient Satisfaction Following Top Surgery: A RealSelf Analysis Using Advanced Natural Language Processing.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient preferences for scar orientation after gender-affirming mastectomy: A survey study.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Experiences of Transgender and Gender Diverse Patients in Accessing Gender-Affirming Chest Masculinization: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Thematic Synthesis of the Literature.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Sentiment Analysis of Autologous Breast Reconstruction Using Natural Language Processing and Deep Learning.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chest masculinization (top) surgery nearly tripled from 2016 to 2020 and is often the only gender-affirming procedure for transgender men. Outcomes are highly variable and operator-dependent, with limited research evaluating them from the patient's perspective. This study examined the impact of specific surgical metrics and procedure costs on patient-reported outcomes following top surgery. Methods: RealSelf.com was queried for patient reviews. Extracted variables included procedure date, overall satisfaction, procedure cost, and written reviews. An artificial intelligence (AI) natural language processing tool was used for sentiment quantification from 0 to 1. Two authors analyzed sentiment on nipple-areolar complex (NAC) position, NAC quality, scar position, scar quality, and chest contour. Analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U tested sentiment differences and cost comparisons, whereas the Pearson correlation analyzed cost-sentiment relationships. Results: A total of 350 (96.42%) of 363 reviews were satisfactory, with an indication of "worth it" and mean sentiment score of 0.80. Worth it ratings had significantly higher median AI-generated positive sentiment scores than "not worth it" ratings (0.91 versus 0.56, Conclusions: Chest masculinization surgeons can optimize patient satisfaction by focusing on key features, particularly related to NAC features and scars. The cost of this procedure did not significantly influence patient satisfaction. Practitioners can benefit from AI language tools to effectively analyze patient feedback and implement rapid improvements in their practice.
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.