Quality of information for women seeking breast augmentation in the Internet

References

• del Carmen MG, Joffe S. Informed consent for medical treatment and research: a review. Oncologist 2005;10:636–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasr AS, Rehm RS. Living-related donors' quest for information before donation. Prog Transplant 2009;19:53–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forster NA, Kunzi W, Giovanoli P. The reoperation cascade after breast augmentation with implants: what the patient needs to know. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013;66:313–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IPDAS. International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration. IPDAS collaboration background document. 2005; http://idpdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS_Background.pdf [Published February 17, 2005 Accessed November 2013.]
   Google Scholar
• Waterman AD, Stanley SL, Covelli T, et al. Living donation decision making: recipients' concerns and educational needs. Prog Transplant 2006;16:17–23.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• HON. Health on the Net Foundation. 2012. [Accessed November 2013.]
   Google Scholar
• Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA 2001;285:2612–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melloul E, Raptis DA, Oberkofler CE, et al. Donor information for living donor liver transplantation: where can comprehensive information be found? Liver Transpl 2012;18:892–900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes-Rovner M. International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS): beyond decision aids to usual design of patient education materials. Health Expect 2007;10:103–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charvet-Berard AI, Chopard P, Perneger TV. Measuring quality of patient information documents with an expanded EQIP scale. Patient Educ Couns 2008;70:407–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moult B, Franck LS, Brady H. Ensuring quality information for patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care information. Health Expect 2004;7:165–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BMA. British Medical Association BMA patient information awards. 2012. [Accessed November 2013.]
   Google Scholar
• Nicholls S, Hankins M, Hooley C, Smith H. A survey of the quality and accuracy of information leaflets about skin cancer and sun-protective behaviour available from UK general practices and community pharmacies. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009;23:566–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaona A, Marcon A, Rava M, et al. Quality evaluation of JAMA Patient Pages on diabetes using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patient (EQIP) tool. Prim Care Diabetes 2011;5:257–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frueh FS, Palma AF, Raptis DA, et al. Carpal tunnel syndrome: Analysis of online patient information with the EQIP tool. Chirurgie De La Main 2015;34:113–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• eBizMBA. Top 15 Most Popular Search Engines. 2013. http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/search-engines [Accessed September 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Review-Net.com. Systematic Review Platform. 2012. http://www.review-net.com [Accessed September 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Raptis DA, Mettler T, Fischer MA, et al. Managing multicentre clinical trials with open source. Inform Health Soc Care 2014;39:67–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ademiluyi G, Rees CE, Sheard CE. Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the Internet. Patient Educ Couns 2003;50:151–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quaba O, Quaba A. PIP silicone breast implants: rupture rates based on the explantation of 676 implants in a single surgeon series. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013;66:1182–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaub TA, Ahmad J, Rohrich RJ. Capsular contracture with breast implants in the cosmetic patient: saline versus silicone-a systematic review of the literature. – systematic of literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;126:2140–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson JM, Gatti ME, Schaffner AD, et al. Effect of incision choice on outcomes in primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 2012;32:456–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pittet B, Montandon D, Pittet D. Infection in breast implants. Lancet Infect Dis 2005;5:94–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartsich S, Ascherman JA, Whittier S, et al. The breast: a clean-contaminated surgical site. Aesthet Surg J 2011;31:802–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ersek RA. Rate and incidence of capsular contracture: a comparison of smooth and textured silicone double-lumen breast prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg 1991;87:879–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ersek RA, Salisbury AV. Textured surface, nonsilicone gel breast implants: four years' clinical outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997;100:1729–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabriel SE, Woods JE, O'Fallon WM, et al. Complications leading to surgery after breast implantation. N Engl J Med 1997;336:677–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosner B. Descriptive statistics. In: Rosner B, ed. Fundamentals of Biostatistics. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press; 1999:19–25.
   Google Scholar
• Cosmetic Surgery University of California, Los Angeles. http://cosmeticsurgery.ucla.edu [Accessed February 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Gordon JB, Barot LR, Fahey AL, Matthews MS. The Internet as a source of information on breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;107:171–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jejurikar SS, Rovak JM, Kuzon WM, Jr., et al. Evaluation of plastic surgery information on the Internet. Ann Plast Surg 2002;49:460–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu TS, Miller TA. Economic analysis of the future growth of cosmetic surgery procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121:404e–12e.
   Google Scholar
• Losken A, Burke R, Elliott LF 2nd, Carlson GW. Infonomics and breast reconstruction: are patients using the internet? Ann Plast Surg 2005;54:247–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walden JL, Panagopoulous G, Shrader SW. Contemporary decision making and perception in patients undergoing cosmetic breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 2010;30:395–403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoppe IC, Ahuja NK, Ingargiola MJ, Granick MS. A survey of patient comprehension of readily accessible online educational material regarding plastic surgery procedures. Aesthet Surg J 2013;33:436–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong WW, Camp MC, Camp JS, Gupta SC. The quality of Internet advertising in aesthetic surgery: an in-depth analysis. Aesthet Surg J 2010;30:735–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galanis C, Sanchez IS, Roostaeian J, Crisera C. Factors influencing patient interest in plastic surgery and the process of selecting a surgeon. Aesthet Surg J 2013;33:585–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health. Sheet 6 - guidelines for writing informed consent documents http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/info/sheet6.html [Accessed February 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Barry MJ. Shared decision making: informing and involving patients to do the right thing in health care. J Ambul Care Manage 2012;35:90–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P, Grol R. Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. Br J Gen Pract 2000;50:892–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Didie ER, Sarwer DB. Factors that influence the decision to undergo cosmetic breast augmentation surgery. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2003;12:241–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wikipedia. English language: geographical distribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language#Geographical_distribution [Accessed February 2014.]
   Google Scholar
• Palma AF, Oberkofler CE, Raptis DA, et al. Novel rescue procedure for inferior vena cava reconstruction in living-donor liver transplantation using a vascular graft recovered 25 h after donors' circulatory death and systematic review. Transpl Int 2014;27:204–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010;8:336–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar