A Systematic Review of Randomized Control Trials on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Rhinoplasty.

IF 3.4 2区医学 Q1 SURGERY

Plastic and reconstructive surgery Pub Date : 2025-10-09 DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000012513

Ankur Khajuria, Roshan S Rupra, Kian Daneshi, Shasthra Naidoo, Sudipa Chauhan, Delaram Imantalab, Bassel Alaa, Krishna S Vyas, Rod J Rohrich

{"title":"A Systematic Review of Randomized Control Trials on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Rhinoplasty.","authors":"Ankur Khajuria, Roshan S Rupra, Kian Daneshi, Shasthra Naidoo, Sudipa Chauhan, Delaram Imantalab, Bassel Alaa, Krishna S Vyas, Rod J Rohrich","doi":"10.1097/PRS.0000000000012513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are crucial for evaluating rhinoplasty outcomes, yet no standardized, validated PROM tailored to rhinoplasty exists. This systematic review examines existing PROMs, identifying gaps in their ability to capture both aesthetic and functional outcomes.Methods: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index, and PubMed. The protocol was registered a priori (CRD42024513514). Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool, with study quality evaluated via the validated GRADE tool.Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials involving 743 patients were analyzed. The mean follow-up was 9.1 months, with a mean patient age of 35.35 years (±5.95) and a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.91. Ten distinct PROMs were identified, with FACE-Q emerging as the most robust, meeting 19 of 21 development standards. However, FACE-Q lacked the ability to assess functional outcomes critical to rhinoplasty, such as nasal airway function and breathing.Conclusion: This review highlights the heterogeneity of PROMs in rhinoplasty research and the limitations of current tools in addressing both aesthetic and functional outcomes. While FACE-Q is the most robust for aesthetic evaluation, its functional limitations underscore the need for refinement or a dedicated PROM tailored to the comprehensive demands of rhinoplasty.","PeriodicalId":20128,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000012513","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are crucial for evaluating rhinoplasty outcomes, yet no standardized, validated PROM tailored to rhinoplasty exists. This systematic review examines existing PROMs, identifying gaps in their ability to capture both aesthetic and functional outcomes.

Methods: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index, and PubMed. The protocol was registered a priori (CRD42024513514). Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool, with study quality evaluated via the validated GRADE tool.

Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials involving 743 patients were analyzed. The mean follow-up was 9.1 months, with a mean patient age of 35.35 years (±5.95) and a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.91. Ten distinct PROMs were identified, with FACE-Q emerging as the most robust, meeting 19 of 21 development standards. However, FACE-Q lacked the ability to assess functional outcomes critical to rhinoplasty, such as nasal airway function and breathing.

Conclusion: This review highlights the heterogeneity of PROMs in rhinoplasty research and the limitations of current tools in addressing both aesthetic and functional outcomes. While FACE-Q is the most robust for aesthetic evaluation, its functional limitations underscore the need for refinement or a dedicated PROM tailored to the comprehensive demands of rhinoplasty.

查看原文本刊更多论文

对鼻整形患者报告的疗效指标的随机对照试验的系统评价。

背景：患者报告的预后指标（PROMs）对于评估鼻整形效果至关重要，但目前还没有标准化的、经过验证的针对鼻整形的预后指标。这篇系统的综述检查了现有的prom，确定了它们在捕捉美学和功能结果方面的能力差距。方法：采用MEDLINE、Embase、谷歌Scholar、CENTRAL、Science Citation Index和PubMed进行符合prisma标准的系统评价。协议被先验注册（CRD42024513514）。使用Cochrane的偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险，通过经过验证的GRADE工具评估研究质量。结果：共分析了12项随机对照试验743例患者。平均随访9.1个月，平均年龄35.35岁（±5.95），男女比例1:1.91。确定了10个不同的prom，其中FACE-Q是最健壮的，满足21个开发标准中的19个。然而，FACE-Q缺乏评估鼻整形关键功能结果的能力，如鼻气道功能和呼吸。结论：本综述强调了PROMs在鼻整形研究中的异质性，以及当前工具在解决美学和功能结果方面的局限性。虽然FACE-Q是最稳健的美学评估，但其功能限制强调需要改进或专门定制的PROM以满足鼻整形术的综合需求。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Plastic and reconstructive surgery 医学-外科

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

13.90%

发文量

1436

审稿时长

1.5 months

期刊介绍： For more than 70 years Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® has been the one consistently excellent reference for every specialist who uses plastic surgery techniques or works in conjunction with a plastic surgeon. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® , the official journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, is a benefit of Society membership, and is also available on a subscription basis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® brings subscribers up-to-the-minute reports on the latest techniques and follow-up for all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including breast reconstruction, experimental studies, maxillofacial reconstruction, hand and microsurgery, burn repair, cosmetic surgery, as well as news on medicolegal issues. The cosmetic section provides expanded coverage on new procedures and techniques and offers more cosmetic-specific content than any other journal. All subscribers enjoy full access to the Journal''s website, which features broadcast quality videos of reconstructive and cosmetic procedures, podcasts, comprehensive article archives dating to 1946, and additional benefits offered by the newly-redesigned website.