ArticleJPRAS open2026
Panel evaluation of esthetic result after chest masculinization: Reliability and comparison with patient-reported satisfaction.
Article in JPRAS open, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chest masculinization is the most common surgical intervention in transgender men. Patient-reported satisfaction is generally good, but we lack other tools for evaluation of the postoperative result and knowledge about the surgeons understanding of a desirable result. Panel evaluation of the esthetic result has been used widely in other surgical areas. However, regarding chest masculinization, the use of panel evaluation is limited. This study aims to evaluate esthetic postoperative result after chest masculinization by an expert panel and to assess the reliability of panel evaluation. Furthermore, we aim to compare the panel evaluation with patient-reported satisfaction. The data comprised all patients receiving chest masculinization from 2005 to 2018 with sufficient postoperative images. Sufficient images were found for 48 patients, 26 of whom filled in the patient-reported outcome tool BODY-Q Chest Module. The esthetic result was evaluated by a six-person expert panel. On a scale from 1 (worst) to 4 (best), panelists' overall score yielded a median of 3.2. Inter-rater reliability was low. Scores given by female and male panelists did not differ significantly. When evaluating items scored by both the panelists and the patients, no significant correlation emerged. We conclude that the esthetic result after chest masculinization is generally good. However, even professionals lack a consensus on the desired result. The panel evaluation in this study proved to be unreliable, but due to biases in patient-reported outcomes, we call for the development of a validated clinician-reported tool for assessment of esthetic result after chest masculinization.
Indexed as
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.