ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Progress of Plastic and Aesthetic Industry in Mainland China: A National Data Comparison between Public and Private Hospitals.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe expansion of plastic and aesthetic industries is heavily market-driven. With socioeconomic advancement, the plastic and aesthetic industries have experienced extraordinarily rapid growth over the past several decades, exhibiting distinct patterns between public and private hospitals.
methodsWe collected national data from public and private hospitals across mainland China through the National Clinical Information System (NCIS) and the National Medical Quality Control Platform (NMQCP) for Plastic and Aesthetic Major. Data encompassed hospital profiles, practitioner demographics, inpatient clinical case mix, ambulatory therapeutic modalities, and the consultation rate for aesthetic injection complications.
resultsAmong public hospitals offering plastic/aesthetic services, 99.20% were general hospitals, while 80.60% of private hospitals were specialized in plastic and aesthetic procedures. We also found significant differences between public and private hospitals regarding physician qualifications, professional backgrounds, inpatient case mix, and ambulatory therapeutic modalities. The consultation rate for aesthetic injection complications was additionally higher in public hospitals relative to private hospitals.
conclusionBoth public and private hospitals have established plastic and aesthetic specialties with distinct scale characteristics. Driven by greater operational autonomy and their market-driven nature, private hospitals exhibited greater flexibility in development within this specialty and demonstrated a stronger preference for minimally invasive treatments. However, despite their perceived minimal invasiveness, aesthetic injections carried significant complication risks; and particularly, severe cases resulted in substantial physical trauma and financial burdens for aesthetic patients. We recommend that government authorities formulate tailored quality-control measures based on the divergent developmental paths of public and private hospitals to safeguard patient safety. 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
42192012What 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.