Evaluates readability and quality of BBL information online, indicating a need for improved resources.
Background The Brazilian Butt Lift (BBL) has become increasingly popular yet remains one of the highest-risk aesthetic procedures. As patients frequently use online sources to understand medical procedures, clear and reliable web-based information is essential. Objectives This study evaluates the readability, understandability, quality, and visibility of online BBL resources. Methods A Google search for “Brazilian Butt Lift Procedure” was conducted using Startpage to reduce bias. The first ten eligible English-language websites were analysed. Extracted text was evaluated using six readability indices. Understandability was assessed with the Patient Educational Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT), overall quality with the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) Benchmark Criteria. Website visibility was measured using SpyFu estimates of monthly organic traffic. Spearman’s correlation was used to explore the relationship between readability and traffic. Results Readability for all websites exceeded the recommended sixth-grade level (mean readability score 21,68), indicating complex content. 60% of the websites scored 83% in PEMAT due to long sentences and limited explanation of technical terms; the remaining 40% websites met all understandability criteria. JAMA assessment revealed deficiencies in transparency, with few sites providing references, author credentials, or publication dates. The correlation between readability and organic traffic was weakly positive (ρ = 0.176), indicating that frequently visited websites were not necessarily easier to read. Conclusions In this review, Online BBL information was generally difficult to understand and often lacks essential quality indicators. The weak relationship between readability and traffic suggests that popular websites may not provide accessible content. Improving linguistic clarity, structure, transparency is needed to ensure patients receive reliable, comprehensible guidance on this high-risk procedure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bertulla et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: