ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
The ABC of BBA: A Personal Perspective of a 10 Point Plan: A Critical Appraisal.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The article The ABC of BBA: A Personal Perspective of a 10 Point Plan is a structured expert opinion, which focuses on the technical, aesthetic and procedural aspects of BBA. The proposed 10-point framework provides for a practical approach for the surgeon, but most of the recommendations are based on personal experience and a narrative synthesis of the authors' experience. There are also several statements-such as the preferred implant planes, the maintenance of the inframammary fold and that hybrid augmentation is better-with little evidence to support them. Moreover, patient-reported outcomes, cultural differences in aesthetic standards, and surgeon-specific learning curves are not fully discussed. More robust clinical relevance of such recommendations could be achieved by the increased integration of validated patient-centered and clinical outcome measures (BREAST-Q). The overall value of the paper lies in its didactic expert overview, but its conclusions ought to be read with caution, as no comparative research and patient-based evidence are used to validate them.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
42486934What 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.