ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
From Hashtags to Health Narratives: A Content Analysis of Breast Implant Illness on TikTok.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast Implant Illness (BII) is a term used to describe a constellation of nonspecific symptoms attributed to breast implants and is increasingly discussed on social media platforms like TikTok. Understanding online discourse surrounding BII is important to better appreciate patient experiences and recognize potential impacts on patient decision-making.
objectivesThis study aims to assess available information on TikTok regarding BII by examining both video content, quality, and engagement while identifying prevailing trends in the discourse.
methodsTikTok was queried using BII-related hashtags. Relevant videos with over 10,000 views were included. Video engagement metrics, creator type, content, and purpose were analyzed. DISCERN and Global Quality Scale (GQS) scores were utilized to assess the quality of health information.
resultsThe analyzed videos accumulated over 116 million views, with patients being the predominant content creators (73.9%). Engagement metrics did not differ significantly between creator types or board certification status, but verified accounts received significantly higher engagement. Personal experience videos were more common (45.7%) than entertainment (28.3%) and education (26.1%) videos, yet entertainment-focused videos received significantly more views and likes (p < 0.05). Overall, video quality was low, with plastic surgeons producing significantly higher DISCERN and GQS scores than patients (p < 0.001).
conclusionSocial media serves as an important space for BII discourse, but the predominance of anecdotal content over evidence-based knowledge raises concerns about misinformation. Plastic surgeons' videos were higher quality but did not achieve greater engagement, highlighting the need for greater provider participation to strengthen accurate and appropriate patient information. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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
40699339What 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.