Study outlines tools to assess facial plastic surgery outcomes

May 19, 2008

Objective, validated measures for assessing outcomes following facial plastic surgery have become more prevalent over the past decade, according to a review of previous studies published in the May/June issue of Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery.

Outcomes studies can be broadly grouped into three categories, according to background information in the article. Patient-reported outcomes studies assess patient satisfaction, typically using a quality-of-life instrument that has been validated or corroborated. Clinical efficacy outcomes studies use objective scales such as physician reports to measure the effectiveness of a given treatment or intervention. Finally, actuarial or financial outcomes studies gauge results based on cost measures.

John S. Rhee, M.D., M.P.H., and Brian T. McMullin, M.D., of the Medical College of Wisconsin and the Zablocki Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Milwaukee, reviewed studies published in English between 1806 and 2007 to identify instruments used to measure outcomes for certain facial plastic surgery procedures. The instruments were classified as either patient-reported or clinical efficacy measures, then further categorized based on the type of intervention, whether they were independently validated and whether they were subsequently used again.

A total of 68 separate instruments were identified, including 23 patient-reported measures and 45 clinical efficacy measures (35 that were observer-reported and 10 that were objective). “Most patient-reported measures (76 percent) and half of observer-reported instruments (51 percent) were developed in the past 10 years,” the authors write. “The rigor of validation varied widely among measures, with formal validation being most common among the patient-reported outcome measures.”

As more attention has been focusing on improving patient outcomes, the use of validated measures has become more important for physicians and researchers, the authors note. “The use of validated tools allows for true comparisons among different interventions or different techniques within a single intervention,” they write. “Such tools can also reliably assist in identifying good surgical candidates and approaches, as well as identifying patients unlikely to benefit from surgery. Finally, they can serve to help demonstrate treatment efficacy and establish legitimacy for third-party payers and government oversight bodies charged with the allocation of resources.”

Source: JAMA and Archives Journals

Explore further: Court clears German safety body in breast implant scare

Related Stories

Another five things to know about meta-analysis

Jul 01, 2015

Last year I wrote a post of "5 Key Things to Know About Meta-Analysis". It was a great way to focus – but it was hard keeping to only 5. With meta-analyses booming, including many that are poorly done or ...

The physical properties of dense molecular clouds

Jun 25, 2015

Small, dense interstellar clouds of gas and dust, containing hundreds to thousands of solar-masses of material, are suspected of being the precursors to stars and stellar clusters. These so-called cores, ...

Designer wheat fails anti-aphid field test

Jun 25, 2015

The scientific quest for pest-resistant crops suffered a blow Thursday when disappointed British researchers announced their designer wheat failed to repel aphids in the field.

Recommended for you

Drug and device firms paid $6.5B to care providers

Jun 30, 2015

From research dollars to free lunches and junkets, drug and medical device companies paid doctors and leading hospitals nearly $6.5 billion last year, according to government data posted Tuesday.

User comments : 0

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.