Observational studyAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Visual Attention in Rhinoplasty: Eye-Tracking Comparison of Patients and Physicians on Profile Images.
Observational study in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. 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.
- Comments on "Visual Attention in Rhinoplasty: Eye-Tracking Comparison of Patients and Physicians on Profile Images".Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byComments on "Visual Attention in Rhinoplasty: Eye-Tracking Comparison of Patients and Physicians on Profile Images".2026 · No abstract available.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVisual attention influences aesthetic perception and may affect expectations and satisfaction in rhinoplasty.
objectivesTo compare how patients and rhinoplasty surgeons visually assess facial profiles using eye-tracking technology.
methodsThis cross-sectional observational study included 26 patients and 13 experienced otolaryngologists. All participants viewed 21 standardized lateral facial profile photographs. Visual attention across ten facial regions was recorded using eye-tracking technology, focusing on first fixation area, total viewing time, fixation count, and revisits.
resultsBoth groups focused most on the nasal region. Patients demonstrated significantly higher visual engagement with the nasal tip, including longer viewing time (25.18 ± 10.23 s vs 15.64 ± 11.19 s; P = .011) and more fixations (97.62 ± 40.64 vs 63.92 ± 42.24; P = .021). Physicians, by contrast, focused more on the radix, with longer viewing time (38.89 ± 17.49 s vs 24.91 ± 17.64 s; P = .025) and more fixations (144.38 ± 47.59 vs 108.04 ± 52.72; P = .043). No statistically significant differences were observed in other facial regions.
conclusionPatients and surgeons focus on different nasal regions, and eye-tracking may help align their aesthetic expectations. 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
41413747What 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.