Quality and Consistency of Rhinoplasty Photos on Social Media: Prevalence of Potentially Misleading Before-and-After Images.

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Shervin Eskandari, Mitesh Mehta, Anita Sethna, David W Chou
{"title":"Quality and Consistency of Rhinoplasty Photos on Social Media: Prevalence of Potentially Misleading Before-and-After Images.","authors":"Shervin Eskandari, Mitesh Mehta, Anita Sethna, David W Chou","doi":"10.1089/fpsam.2024.0232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> There is significant variability in how rhinoplasty results are presented on social media. This study aims to evaluate the quality and consistency of preoperative and postoperative rhinoplasty photos on the social media platform Instagram. <b>Methods:</b> Instagram was queried on April 4, 2024 using the search term #rhinoplastybeforeandafter. Posts meeting our inclusion criteria were analyzed for inconsistencies in background, makeup, use of personal photo, and variations in face size between preoperative and postoperative images. Account demographics and time since surgery were also noted. <b>Results:</b> A total of 888 sets of before-and-after rhinoplasty photos were included, with nearly all (<i>n</i> = 882) posted by surgeon accounts. Of the posts analyzed, 23.7% had a ≥10% face size discrepancy, and 5.1% had a ≥10% face rotation discrepancy. Only 35.7% of posts were considered \"high quality,\" with no significant photo discrepancies between postop and preop images and with postoperative time interval reported. <b>Conclusion:</b> Instagram before-and-after rhinoplasty photos evaluated in this study exhibited significant heterogeneity in quality and consistency regarding image background, image source, face size, face rotation, and brightness. Surgeons should prioritize consistency between preoperative and postoperative photos when sharing their results to minimize the potential for misleading the public.</p>","PeriodicalId":48487,"journal":{"name":"Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/fpsam.2024.0232","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: There is significant variability in how rhinoplasty results are presented on social media. This study aims to evaluate the quality and consistency of preoperative and postoperative rhinoplasty photos on the social media platform Instagram. Methods: Instagram was queried on April 4, 2024 using the search term #rhinoplastybeforeandafter. Posts meeting our inclusion criteria were analyzed for inconsistencies in background, makeup, use of personal photo, and variations in face size between preoperative and postoperative images. Account demographics and time since surgery were also noted. Results: A total of 888 sets of before-and-after rhinoplasty photos were included, with nearly all (n = 882) posted by surgeon accounts. Of the posts analyzed, 23.7% had a ≥10% face size discrepancy, and 5.1% had a ≥10% face rotation discrepancy. Only 35.7% of posts were considered "high quality," with no significant photo discrepancies between postop and preop images and with postoperative time interval reported. Conclusion: Instagram before-and-after rhinoplasty photos evaluated in this study exhibited significant heterogeneity in quality and consistency regarding image background, image source, face size, face rotation, and brightness. Surgeons should prioritize consistency between preoperative and postoperative photos when sharing their results to minimize the potential for misleading the public.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
30.00%
发文量
159
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信