Maarten J Ottenhof1,2,3,4, Inge J Veldhuizen5, Lusanne J V Hensbergen5, Louise L Blankensteijn5, Wichor Bramer6, Berend Vd Lei7, Maarten M Hoogbergen5, René R W J Hulst8, Chris J Sidey-Gibbons9. 1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. maartenottenhof@gmail.com. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. maartenottenhof@gmail.com. 3. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. maartenottenhof@gmail.com. 4. Patient-Reported Outcomes, Value & Experience (PROVE) Center, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. maartenottenhof@gmail.com. 5. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 6. Medical Library, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Plastic Surgery, University and University Medical School of Groningen and Bey Bergman Clinics, Groningen, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 9. Patient-Reported Outcomes, Value & Experience (PROVE) Center, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the past decade there has been an increasing interest in the field of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) which are now commonly used alongside traditional outcome measures, such as morbidity and mortality. Since the FACE-Q Aesthetic development in 2010, it has been widely used in clinical practice and research, measuring the quality of life and patient satisfaction. It quantifies the impact and change across different aspects of cosmetic facial surgery and minimally invasive treatments. We review how researchers have utilized the FACE-Q Aesthetic module to date, and aim to understand better whether and how it has enhanced our understanding and practice of aesthetic facial procedures. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the literature. Publications that used the FACE-Q Aesthetic module to evaluate patient outcomes were included. Publications about the development of PROMs or modifications of the FACE-Q Aesthetic, translation or validation studies of the FACE-Q Aesthetic scales, papers not published in English, reviews, comments/discussions, or letters to the editor were excluded. RESULTS: Our search produced 1189 different articles; 70 remained after applying in- and exclusion criteria. Significant findings and associations were further explored. The need for evidence-based patient-reported outcome caused a growing uptake of the FACE-Q Aesthetic in cosmetic surgery and dermatology an increasing amount of evidence concerning facelift surgery, botulinum toxin, rhinoplasty, soft tissue fillers, scar treatments, and experimental areas. DISCUSSION: The FACE-Q Aesthetic has been used to contribute substantial evidence about the outcome from the patient perspective in cosmetic facial surgery and minimally invasive treatments. The FACE-Q Aesthetic holds great potential to improve quality of care and may fundamentally change the way we measure success in plastic surgery and dermatology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. 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 .
INTRODUCTION: In the past decade there has been an increasing interest in the field of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) which are now commonly used alongside traditional outcome measures, such as morbidity and mortality. Since the FACE-Q Aesthetic development in 2010, it has been widely used in clinical practice and research, measuring the quality of life and patient satisfaction. It quantifies the impact and change across different aspects of cosmetic facial surgery and minimally invasive treatments. We review how researchers have utilized the FACE-Q Aesthetic module to date, and aim to understand better whether and how it has enhanced our understanding and practice of aesthetic facial procedures. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the literature. Publications that used the FACE-Q Aesthetic module to evaluate patient outcomes were included. Publications about the development of PROMs or modifications of the FACE-Q Aesthetic, translation or validation studies of the FACE-Q Aesthetic scales, papers not published in English, reviews, comments/discussions, or letters to the editor were excluded. RESULTS: Our search produced 1189 different articles; 70 remained after applying in- and exclusion criteria. Significant findings and associations were further explored. The need for evidence-based patient-reported outcome caused a growing uptake of the FACE-Q Aesthetic in cosmetic surgery and dermatology an increasing amount of evidence concerning facelift surgery, botulinum toxin, rhinoplasty, soft tissue fillers, scar treatments, and experimental areas. DISCUSSION: The FACE-Q Aesthetic has been used to contribute substantial evidence about the outcome from the patient perspective in cosmetic facial surgery and minimally invasive treatments. The FACE-Q Aesthetic holds great potential to improve quality of care and may fundamentally change the way we measure success in plastic surgery and dermatology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. 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 .
Authors: Elisabeth A Kappos; Mathias Temp; Dirk J Schaefer; Martin Haug; Daniel F Kalbermatten; Bryant A Toth Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Tomasz R Kosowski; Colleen McCarthy; Patrick L Reavey; Amie M Scott; Edwin G Wilkins; Stefan J Cano; Anne F Klassen; Nicholas Carr; Peter G Cordeiro; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Susan H Weinkle; W Philip Werschler; Craig F Teller; Jonathan M Sykes; Ava Shamban; Alexander Rivkin; Vic A Narurkar; Michael S Kaminer; Steven Dayan; Joel L Cohen; Conor J Gallagher Journal: Aesthet Surg J Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 4.283