Measuring Quality of Life and Patient Satisfaction After Body Contouring: A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: EVIDENCE-BASED BACKGROUND: In both cosmetic and postbariatric body contouring populations, the primary determinants of success are patient satisfaction and quality of life (QOL). These patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are ideally measured with specially-designed, procedure- or condition-specific questionnaires. OBJECTIVE: The authors identify and appraise all patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (questionnaires) developed for patients undergoing body contouring surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Ebase, CINAHL, HAPI, Science Citation Index/Social Sciences Citation Index, Ovid Evidence Based Medicine databases were searched from the inception of each database through August 2010. Articles included in the study described the development and/or psychometric evaluation of a PRO measure developed for body contouring patients. Each measure was then appraised for adherence to internationally-recommended guidelines for item generation, item reduction, and psychometric evaluation. RESULTS: The following five PRO questionnaires were identified by our search: one liposuction (the Freiburg Questionnaire on Aesthetic Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery, FQAD), one general plastic surgery (Derriford Appearance Scale, DAS-59/24), and three breast reduction measures (the Breast Reduction Assessed Severity Scale Questionnaire, BRASSQ; Breast Related Symptoms questionnaire, BRS; and the BREAST-Q reduction module. Detailed examination of these measures revealed that the FQAD, DAS-59, and BRS are limited by both their content range and psychometric properties. The BRASSQ and BREAST-Q both have strong psychometric properties, and the BREAST-Q is unique in its inclusion of items covering specific postoperative issues such as scarring. CONCLUSIONS: While instruments are available for measuring outcomes in breast reduction patients, reliable, valid, and responsive PRO measures are lacking for the majority of body contouring procedures. To demonstrate the unique outcomes of body contouring surgery, future research to rigorously develop and validate new PRO measures in this population is necessary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it