Scholarlink

<p>This paper is a reply to Parsa Veisi Commentary discussing concerns raised regarding our paper Long et al. (Aesthet Plast Surg 49:4439–4446, 2025). Our paper aimed to assess patient preferences and comfort with virtual aesthetic consultation. The findings provide relevant insights that enable readers to critically interpret the results and assess their applicability to their own practice settings. Importantly, this study functions as a robust hypothesis generator source to drive future research studies.</p><p><i>No Level Assigned</i> This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors <a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Reply: Patient Preferences for Utilization of Telemedicine in Aesthetic Surgery Consultations

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月10日

查看全文
  • Valeria P. Bustos,
  • Emily Long,
  • Samuel Lin

摘要

This paper is a reply to Parsa Veisi Commentary discussing concerns raised regarding our paper Long et al. (Aesthet Plast Surg 49:4439–4446, 2025). Our paper aimed to assess patient preferences and comfort with virtual aesthetic consultation. The findings provide relevant insights that enable readers to critically interpret the results and assess their applicability to their own practice settings. Importantly, this study functions as a robust hypothesis generator source to drive future research studies.

No Level Assigned This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.