RESUMO
Background: Instruments that assess the results of plastic surgery from patient's perspective allow a multidimensional evaluation of surgical results. Aim: To develop a new instrument to assess the functional and esthetic results of rhinoplasty from the point of view of the patient. Material and Methods: A conceptual framework about important results for nasal image was developed using information from in depth interviews to patients, focal groups with experts and interviews to esthetic surgeons and patients subjected to rhinoplasty. Results: Four patients and four plastic surgeons were interviewed. The three sub scales identified for the conceptual framework were quality of life, postoperative disability and pain and surgeon's objective evaluation scale. Five domains for quality of life were identified including nose size and form, self-image and esteem, third party perceptions and social relationships, nasal function and segmental nasal analysis. Conclusions: After completion of the psychometric assessment, the Nose-QoL instrument will become a valuable instrument to measure the impact and effectiveness of rhinoplasty from the patient's perspective.
Objetivo: Desarrollar un nuevo instrumento de resultados estéticos y funcionales desde la perspectiva del paciente, diseñado para medir la satisfacción de éstos en relación a rinoplastía. Métodos: Revisión de la literatura, entrevistas en profundidad a pacientes, grupos focales de discusión de expertos, a cirujanos plásticos y pacientes sometidos a rinoplastías, con lo que se desarrolló un marco conceptual en relación a los resultados considerados importantes para la imagen nasal. Resultados: Se entrevistó a cuatro pacientes y cuatro cirujanos plásticos. Las tres Subescalas identificadas para el marco conceptual incluyen: la Calidad de Vida (CdV), la Escala de Discapacidad y Dolor Post-operatorio (EDDP) y Escala de Evaluación Objetiva del Cirujano (EEOC). Se identificaron 5 dominios para la subescala CdV, que incluyen: tamaño y forma de la nariz, autoimagen y autoestima, percepción de terceros y relaciones sociales, función nasal y análisis nasal segmentario. Conclusiones: Una vez completada la evaluación psicométrica, el instrumento Nose-QoL y subescalas, proporcionará una herramienta confiable para cirujanos plásticos, investigadores y pacientes para medir el impacto y la eficacia de las rinoplastías, desde la perspectiva del paciente. Nivel de Evidencia: 1 -Estudio cualitativo, generación de instrumentos de medición de resultado desde la perspectiva del paciente.
Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Adulto , Feminino , Satisfação do Paciente , Rinoplastia/psicologia , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Psicometria , Qualidade de Vida , Autoimagem , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodological quality of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in burn care treatment and management. METHODS: Using a predetermined search strategy we searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to January 2008) database to identify all English RCTs related to burn care. Full text studies identified were reviewed for key demographic and methodological characteristics. Methodological trial quality was assessed using the Jadad scale. RESULTS: A total of 257 studies involving 14,535 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median Jadad score was 2 (out of a best possible score of 5). Information was given in the introduction and discussion sections of most RCTs, although insufficient detail was provided on randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding. The number of RCTs increased between 1950 and 2008 (Spearman's rho=0.6129, P<0.001), although the reporting quality did not improve over the same time period (P=0.1896) and was better in RCTs with larger sample sizes (median Jadad score, 4 vs. 2 points, P<0.0001). Methodological quality did not correlate with journal impact factor (P=0.2371). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting standards of RCTs are highly variable and less than optimal in most cases. The advent of evidence-based medicine heralds a new approach to burns care and systematic steps are needed to improve the quality of RCTs in this field. Identifying and reviewing the existing number of RCTs not only highlights the need for burn clinicians to conduct more trials, but may also encourage burn health clinicians to consider the importance of conducting trials that follow appropriate, evidence-based standards.