Evaluating Board Certification Within the Aesthetic Marketplace.

BACKGROUND: Unlike most health care sectors, patients can select an aesthetic surgery provider without considering insurance coverage. Patients therefore must be able to make informed choices regarding provider selection. Surgeon qualifications are part of the data patients evaluate in their decision making. To characterize the provider landscape that patients face, this study compares the certification requirements of various boards within the aesthetic marketplace. METHODS: Four boards were identified for analysis based on a Google search of "board of plastic surgery": the American Board of Plastic Surgery (ABPS), the American Board of Cosmetic Surgery (ABCS), the American Board of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ABFPRS), and the American Board of Facial Cosmetic Surgery (ABFCS). Information on certification requirements was obtained from each board's official website. RESULTS: ABPS requires that diplomates complete an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited plastic surgery residency, pass a written and oral examination that includes a case collection, and meet continual standards to maintain certification. ABCS and ABFCS both require an American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery (AACS) cosmetic surgery fellowship and passage of a written and oral examination. Neither board has case collection or continuing certification requirements. ABFPRS requires completion of either an ACGME-accredited otolaryngology or plastic surgery residency. Its examination process includes written and oral components as well as a case log. ABFPRS has enacted continuing certification requirements for diplomates credentialed in 2001 and later. ABPS is the only board that is a member of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). CONCLUSIONS: ABPS stands apart as the only board within the aesthetic marketplace with rigorous standards for precertification training, demonstrating competency through examinations and case logs, and maintaining certification. Being an ABMS member board also contributes to ABPS being the preeminent organization for identifying physicians who practice safe, effective aesthetic surgery.

Physician Assistants in Plastic Surgery: A Descriptive Analysis Using the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants Dataset.

ABSTRACT: Physician assistants (PAs) play a vital role in the US health care system, particularly amid the persistent surgeon shortage and escalating health care demands. We aim to characterize the current cohort of PAs in plastic surgery by comparing them to PAs in all other specialties. Using a cross-sectional analysis of the 2022 National Commission on Certification of PAs dataset, we examined demographic and practice characteristics of PAs in plastic surgery with those in all other specialties. Analysis included descriptive and bivariate statistics. In 2022, 1.0% of PAs worked in plastic surgery, with the specialty's numbers nearly doubling from 2015 (n = 647) to 2022 (n = 1186). Bivariate analysis among PAs in plastic surgery and those in other settings revealed several important attributes (all P's < 0.001); PAs in plastic surgery were younger (median age, 36 vs 39), identified as female (91.0% vs 69.4%), resided in urban locations (97.6% vs 92.5%), and performed a higher proportion of clinical procedures (66.5% vs 33.9%). Furthermore, a statistically significant higher percentage of PAs in plastic surgery reported high job satisfaction and was more likely to report no symptoms of professional burnout. The expanding PA profession amid the scarcity of surgeons presents an ideal prospect for enhanced collaboration. In an era where surgeon burnout is increasingly common and PAs express a readiness to function at an advanced level, expanding PAs' role becomes desirable and imperative. This collaborative approach has the potential to address workforce challenges, elevate patient care, and enhance provider satisfaction.

Improving Readability and Automating Content Analysis of Plastic Surgery Webpages With ChatGPT.

INTRODUCTION: The quality and readability of online health information are sometimes suboptimal, reducing their usefulness to patients. Manual evaluation of online medical information is time-consuming and error-prone. This study automates content analysis and readability improvement of private-practice plastic surgery webpages using ChatGPT. METHODS: The first 70 Google search results of "breast implant size factors" and "breast implant size decision" were screened. ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 were utilized with two prompts (1: general, 2: specific) to automate content analysis and rewrite webpages with improved readability. ChatGPT content analysis outputs were classified as hallucination (false positive), accurate (true positive or true negative), or omission (false negative) using human-rated scores as a benchmark. Six readability metric scores of original and revised webpage texts were compared. RESULTS: Seventy-five webpages were included. Significant improvements were achieved from baseline in six readability metric scores using a specific-instruction prompt with ChatGPT 3.5 (all P ≤ 0.05). No further improvements in readability scores were achieved with ChatGPT 4.0. Rates of hallucination, accuracy, and omission in ChatGPT content scoring varied widely between decision-making factors. Compared to ChatGPT 3.5, average accuracy rates increased while omission rates decreased with ChatGPT 4.0 content analysis output. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT offers an innovative approach to enhancing the quality of online medical information and expanding the capabilities of plastic surgery research and practice. Automation of content analysis is limited by ChatGPT 3.5's high omission rates and ChatGPT 4.0's high hallucination rates. Our results also underscore the importance of iterative prompt design to optimize ChatGPT performance in research tasks.

Revisiting Level of Evidence Ratings in Plastic Surgery: A Call to Action.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine underpins medical and surgical practice, with level of evidence (LOE) being a key aspect that allows clinicians and researchers to better discriminate the methodological context by which studies are conducted and appropriately interpret their conclusions, and more specifically the strength of their recommendations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to reassess the LOE of articles published in plastic surgery journals. METHODS: To assess the overall LOE of publications from January 1 to December 31, 2021, a review of the following plastic surgery journals was performed: Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ), Annals of Plastic Surgery (Annals), Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (JRPAS), Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS), and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open (PRS GO). RESULTS: Of 3698 PUBMED articles, 1649 original articles and systematic reviews were analyzed. The average LOE for each journal was: ASJ 3.02 ± 0.94, Annals 3.49 ± 0.62, JPRAS 3.33 ± 0.77, PRS 2.91 ± 0.77, and PRS GO 3.45 ± 0.70. The collective average LOE was 3.28 ± 0.78. Only 4.4% were LOE 1 and 7.3% were LOE 2. Compared to past studies, PRS showed a significant LOE improvement (P = .0254), while ASJ and JPRAS saw nonsignificant changes; Annals experienced a significant decrease (P = .0092). CONCLUSIONS: ASJ and PRS showed the highest LOE among the journals analyzed. Despite this, low LOE studies remain prevalent in plastic surgery. This paper serves as a call to action for both researchers and academic journals to elevate the standard, offering several strategies to help improve the LOE in plastic surgery.

American Society of Plastic Surgeons Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline Revision: Reduction Mammaplasty.

SUMMARY: A multidisciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies convened to revise the guideline for reduction mammaplasty. The goal was to develop evidence-based patient care recommendations using the new American Society of Plastic Surgeons guideline methodology. The work group prioritized reviewing the evidence around the need for surgery as first-line treatment, regardless of resection weight or volume. Other factors evaluated included the need for drains, the need for postoperative oral antibiotics, risk factors that increase complications, a comparison in outcomes between the two most popular techniques (inferior and superomedial), the impact of local anesthetic on narcotic use and other nonnarcotic pain management strategies, the use of epinephrine, and the need for specimen pathology. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology). Evidence-based recommendations were made and strength was determined based on the level of evidence and the assessment of benefits and harms.