ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Comments on "Predictors of Complications in Abdominoplasty: A Multivariate Analysis of 150 Consecutive Cases".
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This letter to the editor offers a constructive commentary on a recently published multivariate analysis of predictors of complications in abdominoplasty. The authors commend the original study for its rigorous surgical standardization, consecutive patient enrollment, and single‑surgeon design, and agree that high body mass index and active smoking are independent risk factors, while preservation of Scarpa's fascia appears protective. However, three methodological limitations are identified. First, the sample size and number of events barely meet the minimum recommended events‑per‑variable ratio for multivariate regression. Second, treating seroma, necrosis, and dehiscence as independent outcomes ignores competing risks among these complications, which may bias risk estimates. Third, the single‑center, single‑surgeon design limits external validity, and the finding that diabetes is not a risk factor contradicts some existing literature. The letter suggests that future analyses adopt competing‑risk models and include multicenter external validation. It also notes that no new patient data are provided, so the proposed statistical refinements await empirical verification.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
42286329What 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.