Measuring the Impact of Surgical and Non-surgical Facial Cosmetic Interventions Using FACE-Q Aesthetic Module Scales: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author:

Gallo Lucas1ORCID,Kim Patrick1ORCID,Churchill Isabella F.2ORCID,Gallo Matteo1,Yuan Morgan3ORCID,Voineskos Sophocles H.3ORCID,Thoma Achilles45ORCID,Pusic Andrea L.6,Klassen Anne F.7,Cano Stefan J.8

Affiliation:

1. Division of Plastic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

3. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

4. Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

5. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

6. Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

7. Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

8. Modus Outcomes, Statfold, UK

Abstract

Background: The FACE-Q Aesthetic module measures patient-important outcomes following surgical and non-surgical facial cosmetic procedures. Objective: The primary aim of this systematic review was to summarize the pre- to post-intervention mean differences of facial aesthetic interventions that evaluate outcomes using the FACE-Q Face Overall, Psychological, and Social scales. Methods: Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched on December 20, 2022 with the assistance of a health-research librarian (CRD42023404238). Studies that examined any surgical or non-surgical facial aesthetic intervention in adult patients and used FACE-Q Aesthetics Face Overall, Psychological, and/or Social scales to measure participants before and after treatment were included for analysis. Results: Of 914 potential articles screened, 35 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies evaluated surgical (n = 22, 62.9%) versus non-surgical facial cosmetic interventions (n = 13, 37.1%). Rhinoplasty [37.0 points, 95% CI 24.7-49.3, P < 0.01] demonstrated the largest weighted increase in Face Overall scores, whereas the largest increase in Psychological [67.1 points, 95% CI 62.9–71.3, P < 0.01] and Social [63.9 points, 95% CI 53.2–74.6, P < 0.01] scores was demonstrated by a single study evaluating surgical forehead lifts, respectively. Conclusions: This meta-analysis leverages FACE-Q Aesthetic module scoring to present the expected mean differences in Face Overall, Psychological, and Social scale scores for various surgical and non-surgical facial cosmetic interventions. The findings from this review may be used to indirectly compare interventions and contribute to sample size calculations when planning future studies.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Surgery

Reference50 articles.

1. Qportfolio. FACE-Q | Aesthetics - Q-Portfolio MEASURING WHAT MATTERS TO PATIENTS. Accessed May 20 2023, https://qportfolio.org/face-q/aesthetics/.

2. The Use of the FACE-Q Aesthetic: A Narrative Review

3. Development and Psychometric Validation of the FACE-Q Skin, Lips, and Facial Rhytids Appearance Scales and Adverse Effects Checklists for Cosmetic Procedures

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3