ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Global Trends in Research on Social Media and Cosmetic Surgery Consideration: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Review 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.
- Medico-legal patterns of cosmetic malpractice: a comparative analysis of complaints and judicial outcomes between licensed and unlicensed providers in Shiraz, Iran.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScholarly interest in the relationship between social media and cosmetic surgery has increased substantially, as digital platforms play an increasingly central role in shaping aesthetic norms, body image perceptions, and elective medical decision-making. However, the rapid expansion of this literature has yet to be systematically mapped at a global level.
objectiveThis study aims to provide a comprehensive bibliometric overview of research examining the relationship between social media and cosmetic surgery, with particular attention to publication trends, knowledge structures, collaborative patterns, and thematic evolution over time.
methodsA systematic bibliometric analysis was conducted on 525 publications retrieved from the Scopus and Web of Science databases, covering the period from 2010 to 2024. Studies were identified following the PRISMA 2020 framework and analyzed using VOSviewer to visualize annual publication trends, co-authorship networks, co-citation structures, and keyword co-occurrence clusters.
resultsFindings indicate an exponential rise in research activity post-2020, with the USA leading in publication output yet exhibiting relatively low international collaboration. Citation analysis highlights several seminal contributions that have shaped the field's clinical, psychological, and sociocultural dimensions. Thematic mapping reveals a notable shift from platform-specific studies (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) toward emerging concerns such as ethnic diversity, body dissatisfaction, medical ethics, and digital patient education. Furthermore, keyword trends suggest increasing academic attention to the psychosocial implications of algorithmic beauty standards.
conclusionsThis bibliometric review demonstrates the rapid growth and increasing interdisciplinarity of scholarship on social media and cosmetic surgery, while also highlighting structural imbalances in global knowledge production. The findings clarify the intellectual landscape of the field and identify emerging research directions to inform future theoretical development and empirical inquiry. 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
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.