Browsing by Author "Gray, Megan C"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Assessment of the Wisconsin Criteria at a Level I Trauma Center.
    (The Journal of craniofacial surgery, 2022-09) Gray, Megan C; Kollu, Tejas; Uppal, Priya A; Hanos, Christina; Heiman, Adee; Ricci, Joseph A; Patel, Ashit

    Abstract

    The Wisconsin Criteria was developed for physicians evaluating facial trauma to determine the likelihood of facial fractures. Subsequent studies have not consistently validated these criteria. This study seeks to validate the Wisconsin Criteria and determine its utility in predicting operative facial fractures.Retrospective chart review of the trauma database registry at a Level I Trauma Center was conducted from September 2011 to May 2019. Adult patients who had a complete facial examination by otolaryngology or plastic surgery as well as a head computed tomography scan completed, were included. Fisher exact test was utilized for statistical analysis ( P < 0.05) and positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated with a 95% confidence interval.After screening, 546 patients met eligibility, 448 had at least 1 finding of the Wisconsin Criteria, and 472 patients had facial fractures. The sensitivity of the Wisconsin Criteria for determining the presence of a facial fracture was 86.23%, the specificity was 44.59%, and the NPV was 33.67% ( P < .0001). Malocclusion was the criterion most specific in determining if a facial fracture was present (98.65%), and Glasgow Coma Score < 14 was the least specific (67.57%).The Wisconsin Criteria did aid in the identification of facial fractures in trauma patients with a comparable sensitivity, higher specificity, and much lower NPV than originally described. Further investigation should be done to validate the criteria in other large trauma centers.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Can You Trust What You Watch? An Assessment of the Quality of Information in Aesthetic Surgery Videos on YouTube.
    (Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2020-02) Gray, Megan C; Gemmiti, Amanda; Ata, Ashar; Jun, Brandon; Johnson, Philip K; Ricci, Joseph A; Patel, Ashit

    Background

    Videos on YouTube can be posted without regulation or content oversight. Unfortunately, many patients use YouTube as a resource on aesthetic surgery, leading to misinformation. Currently, there are no objective assessments of the quality of information on YouTube about aesthetic surgery.

    Methods

    YouTube was queried for videos about the 12 most common aesthetic surgical procedures, identified from the 2015 American Society of Plastic Surgeons procedural statistics between May and June of 2016. The top 25 results for each search term were scored using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients criteria based on video structure, content, and author identification. Average Ensuring Quality Information for Patients score, view count, and video duration were compared between authorship groups.

    Results

    A total of 523 videos were graded after excluding duplicates. The mean modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients score for all videos was 13.1 (SE, 0.18) of a possible 27. The videos under the search "nose reshaping" had the lowest mean score of 10.24 (SE, 0.74), whereas "breast augmentation" had the highest score of 15.96 (SE, 0.65). Physician authorship accounted for 59 percent of included videos and had a higher mean Ensuring Quality Information for Patients score than those by patients. Only three of the 21 search terms had a mean modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients score meeting criteria for high-quality videos.

    Conclusions

    The information contained in aesthetic surgery videos on YouTube is low quality. Patients should be aware that the information has the potential to be inaccurate. Plastic surgeons should be encouraged to develop high-quality videos to educate patients.