Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39669436›Full record

SynthesisColombia medica (Cali, Colombia)

Quality in aesthetic medicine and surgery: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

Marta Maes-Carballo, Carlos Roberto Estrada-López, Carmen Martínez-Martínez, Claudia Alberca-Remigio, Cristina Cámara-Martínez, Benito Miguel Josa-Martínez, Rubén Trigueros

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marta Maes-CarballoHospital Público de Verin, Department of General Surgery, Verin, Spain Hospital Público de Verin Department of General Surgery Verin Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4852-5100
Carlos Roberto Estrada-LópezComplexo Hospitalario de Ourense, General Surgery Department, Ourense, Spain Complexo Hospitalario de Ourense General Surgery Department Ourense Spain.
Carmen Martínez-MartínezComplexo Hospitalario de Ourense, General Surgery Department, Ourense, Spain Complexo Hospitalario de Ourense General Surgery Department Ourense Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7842-3414
Claudia Alberca-RemigioComplexo Hospitalario de Ourense, General Surgery Department, Ourense, Spain Complexo Hospitalario de Ourense General Surgery Department Ourense Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9518-9904
Cristina Cámara-MartínezComplexo Hospitalario de Ourense, Urology Department, Ourense, Spain Complexo Hospitalario de Ourense Urology Department Ourense Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1423-9931
Benito Miguel Josa-MartínezHospital Infanta Cristina, General Surgery Department, Madrid, Spain Hospital Infanta Cristina General Surgery Department Madrid Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8616-0501
Rubén TriguerosUniversity of Almeria, Department of Psychology, Almería , Spain Universidad de Almería University of Almeria Department of Psychology Almería Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6703-0680

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Guidelines in medicine are essential tools to provide quality and standardised medical care. We analysed the quality of aesthetic medicine guidelines. Methods: A systematic review with a prospective registration protocol (https://osf.io/8pdyv) of databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR), web pages of scientific societies and grey literature was done from inception to February 2023 and without language restrictions. Quality was evaluated using AGREE II (% of the maximum score), RIGHT (% of the total 35 items) and a shared decision making (SDM) quality assessment tool (31 items score) individually and in duplicate, respectively. Results: Six (86%) guidelines were classified as not recommended; one (14%) was recommended with modifications, and all were classified as poorly reported (7/7; 100%). The median overall quality was 27% (IQR: 26-43) and 26% (IQR 15-36) for AGREE II and RIGHT, respectively. No document used these tools for its development. SDM appeared superfluity in almost all of the guidelines explored. Conclusions: Aesthetic medicine and surgical guidelines had low quality and must be improved. There is a wide range of improvement, especially in applicability, reporting of evidence, recommendations, conflict of interest, quality control and SDM. These guidelines require a rigorous methodology based on systematic reviews to ensure quality evidence-based recommendations.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicDecision Making, SharedEstheticsHumansQuality of Health Careaesthetic medicineclinical practice guidelinesconsensus statementsqualityreportingshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID39669436
PMCPMC11637547

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.