The information provided by cosmetic surgery provider (CP) websites on breast augmentation is no better than that available on Ebay and is of significantly lower quality than that provided by news outlets such as the Guardian newspaper.
That is the finding of new research conducted by the University of Sussex and published in the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery.
The study assessed the quality of information provided by the first 200 websites returned by a Google search for ‘breast enlargement’. The websites were assessed according to standard health information quality (HIQ) parameters including the JAMA score which is defined by the disclosure of source references, website authorship, ownership and date of update. A JAMA score of at least 3 is considered to be good quality.
When compared with gold standard government and professional websites such as the NHS and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS), the JAMA score of CP sites was significantly lower (P<.001). Most CP sites (87%) had a JAMA score of 1. Only 2 per cent of CP websites reached the minimum of JAMA score of 3 and none reached a quality rating of 4, while 40 per cent of websites from other typologies scored at least 3.
Less than 25 per cent of CP websites mentioned the longevity of effects and only 18 per cent included information on potential limitations to the outcome. Only 28 per cent mentioned the potential need for revision surgery and 11 per cent mentioned the risk of breast implant-associated anaplastic lymphoma.
The authors advise that plastic surgeons’ websites should provide comprehensive, accurate, up-to-date and understandable information on breast augmentation and the associated risks and benefits to minimize complaints and litigation, and to ensure high-quality and ethically-transparent information.