ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2026
The Online Landscape of Brazilian Butt Lift Information: Readability, Quality, and Traffic Analysis.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Brazilian Butt Lift (BBL) has become increasingly popular yet remains one of the highest-risk aesthetic procedures. As patients frequently use online sources to understand medical procedures, clear and reliable web-based information is essential. Objectives: This study evaluates the readability, understandability, quality, and visibility of online BBL resources. Methods: A Google search for "Brazilian Butt Lift Procedure" was conducted using Startpage to reduce bias. The first 10 eligible English-language websites were analyzed. Extracted text was evaluated using 6 readability indices. Understandability was assessed with the Patient Educational Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT), overall quality with the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) Benchmark Criteria. Website visibility was measured using SpyFu estimates of monthly organic traffic. Spearman's correlation was used to explore the relationship between readability and traffic. Results: Readability for all websites exceeded the recommended sixth-grade level (mean readability score 21.68), indicating complex content. Sixty percentage of the websites scored 83% in PEMAT due to long sentences and limited explanation of technical terms; the remaining 40% websites met all understandability criteria. Journal of the American Medical Association assessment revealed deficiencies in transparency, with few sites providing references, author credentials, or publication dates. The correlation between readability and organic traffic was weakly positive (ρ = .176), indicating that frequently visited websites were not necessarily easier to read. Conclusions: In this review, online BBL information was generally difficult to understand and often lacks essential quality indicators. The weak relationship between readability and traffic suggests that popular websites may not provide accessible content. Improving linguistic clarity, structure, and transparency is needed to ensure patients receive reliable, comprehensible guidance on this high-risk procedure. Level of Evidence 5 Therapeutic: For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.
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.