A Systematic Review of Randomized Control Trials on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Rhinoplasty
Bibliographic record
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.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.015 | 0.387 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.047 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".