The literature still lacks a review regarding PROs applied for rhinoplasty. Thus, we performed a systematic review of the literature to identify PROMs that assess patient satisfaction and quality of life after rhinoplasty. The aim of our study was to identify existing questionnaires and to summarize their development, psychometric properties, and content. A multi-step search of the web-based PubMed database from the National Library of Medicine was performed to identify PROMs that are designed to evaluate satisfaction and quality of life following rhinoplasty. Each potential PROM was examined by three independent reviewers for adherence to inclusion/exclusion criteria. Questionnaires included in the analysis were appraised for their adherence to international guidelines for the development and validation of health outcome questionnaires, as outlined by the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcome Trust and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Our search generated a total of 457 articles, 351 that were retrieved in the primary search, and 106 that were found in the references of the first set of articles. The process of development and validation of each of the included PROMs was examined. Only ten of these were identified as surgery-specific questionnaires about rhinoplasty. These were divided into three categories: (1) functional self-assessment (Nasal Surgical Questionnaire, Nasal Obstruction Symptoms Evaluation Scale, and Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness); (2) aesthetic self-assessment (Utrecht Questionnaire, FACE-Q rhinoplasty module, Glasgow Benefit Inventory); and (3) aesthetic and functional self-assessment (Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation), Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory 17, RHINO Scale, and Evaluation of Aesthetic Rhinoplasty Scale). © 2016, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty

Cogliandro A;Di Stefano N;Tambone V;Persichetti P
2017-01-01

Abstract

The literature still lacks a review regarding PROs applied for rhinoplasty. Thus, we performed a systematic review of the literature to identify PROMs that assess patient satisfaction and quality of life after rhinoplasty. The aim of our study was to identify existing questionnaires and to summarize their development, psychometric properties, and content. A multi-step search of the web-based PubMed database from the National Library of Medicine was performed to identify PROMs that are designed to evaluate satisfaction and quality of life following rhinoplasty. Each potential PROM was examined by three independent reviewers for adherence to inclusion/exclusion criteria. Questionnaires included in the analysis were appraised for their adherence to international guidelines for the development and validation of health outcome questionnaires, as outlined by the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcome Trust and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Our search generated a total of 457 articles, 351 that were retrieved in the primary search, and 106 that were found in the references of the first set of articles. The process of development and validation of each of the included PROMs was examined. Only ten of these were identified as surgery-specific questionnaires about rhinoplasty. These were divided into three categories: (1) functional self-assessment (Nasal Surgical Questionnaire, Nasal Obstruction Symptoms Evaluation Scale, and Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness); (2) aesthetic self-assessment (Utrecht Questionnaire, FACE-Q rhinoplasty module, Glasgow Benefit Inventory); and (3) aesthetic and functional self-assessment (Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation), Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory 17, RHINO Scale, and Evaluation of Aesthetic Rhinoplasty Scale). © 2016, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
rhinoplasty; Medical Ethics
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12610/4376
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 64
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 62
social impact