ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2026
A National Survey of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons' Experience With Mandatory Body Dysmorphic Disorder Screening in Australia.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2023, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency introduced mandatory psychological screening for cosmetic surgery patients with the aim of preoperatively identify individuals with body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). Objectives: This study assessed the impact of mandatory psychological screening tools on Australian plastic surgeons' practices. It evaluated surgeon confidence in screening tools, referral and diagnosis rates, and the range of specific screening tools used. Methods: A 12-question electronic survey was distributed to members of the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons and the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed to summarize the results. Results: One hundred and thirty-six responses were received (27% response rate). Most respondents (81%) were male, with an average of 17 years of practice experience. The majority (84%) referred <5% of patients for psychological assessment, and 70% reported having no cases of BDD in the past year. Confidence in screening tools was low, with an average rating of 3.2/10 for both accuracy and utility. Only 30% of surgeons indicated they would continue using screening if it were not mandatory. A wide variety of screening tools were reported, with significant variability between them. Conclusions: The low rates of referral for psychological assessment and BDD diagnosis rates indicate a potential discrepancy between screening tool outcomes and expected prevalence rates of the current literature. Standardization and validation of screening tools are needed to enhance confidence in their accuracy and utility. Further research is necessary to assess the long-term impact of mandatory screening tool use in cosmetic surgery. Level of Evidence: 5 (Therapeutic).
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.