SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2016
Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments for Surgical and Traumatic Scars: A Systematic Review of their Development, Content, and Psychometric Validation.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed.
- FACE-Q Patient Report-Assisted Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Blepharoplasty Outcomes Using Two Different Suturing Techniques: A Randomized and Patient-Blinded Pilot Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Trial
- Fractional COLasers in medical science · 2019Trial
- Topical cryoanesthesia for the relief of pain caused by steroid injections used to treat hypertrophic scars and keloids.Medicine · 2017Trial
- Knowledge, attitude and practice regarding scars in patients who had orthopaedic surgery: a cross-sectional study in China.BMJ open · 2025Observational
- Long-Term Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life After Microvascular Reconstruction of Ankle and Foot Defects: A Monocentric Controlled Cohort Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Impact of Scars After DIEP-Flap Breast Reconstruction on Satisfaction and HR-QoL: A Cross-Sectional Study Comparing BREAST-Q Scores.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Top Three Healthcare Trends in Orthopaedics Affecting Musculoskeletal Care in the Elderly.Current aging science · 2025Review
- Burn hypertrophy scarring assessment based on patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS).Annals of burns and fire disasters · 2024Article
- Insights on High-Value Procedures From the ISASS 4-Part Webinar Series on Current and Emerging Techniques in Endoscopic Spine Surgery Based on Surgeon Experience.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Measurement Equivalence and Feasibility of the Electronic and Paper Versions of the POSAS, EQ-5D, and DLQI: A Randomized Crossover Trial.European burn journal · 2024Article
- Body image and quality of life undergoing totally robotic versus robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy: a retrospective propensity score matched cohort study.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Selective enzymatic debridement and modified Meek technique in the treatment of extensive burns: Preliminary observations.Health science reports · 2024Article
- The Impact of Platysma Closure on Post-Thyroidectomy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2024Article
- Article
- Microneedling in Abdominal Scarring after DIEP-flap Breast Reconstruction to Improve Scar Quality: A Randomized Controlled Split Scar Trial.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Content Validity of a Novel Scar Assessment Tool Evaluating the Career and Sexual Well-being Impact of Scars.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Article
- Patient Perceptions of Paramedian Minimally Invasive Spine Skin Incisions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Reporting of scar outcomes in the hand and wrist; a state-of-the-art literature review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Review
- The Importance of Psychometric and Physical Scales for the Evaluation of the Consequences of Scars-A Literature Review.Clinics and practice · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are of growing importance in research and clinical care and may be used as primary outcomes or as compliments to traditional surgical outcomes. In assessing the impact of surgical and traumatic scars, PROs are often the most meaningful. To assess outcomes from the patient perspective, rigorously developed and validated PRO instruments are essential.
methodsThe authors conducted a systematic literature review to identify PRO instruments developed and/or validated for patients with surgical and/or non-burn traumatic scars. Identified instruments were assessed for content, development process, and validation under recommended guidelines for PRO instrument development.
resultsThe systematic review identified 6534 articles. After review, we identified four PRO instruments meeting inclusion criteria: patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS), bock quality of life questionnaire for patients with keloid and hypertrophic scarring (Bock), patient scar assessment questionnaire (PSAQ), and patient-reported impact of scars measure (PRISM). Common concepts measured were symptoms and psychosocial well-being. Only PSAQ had a dedicated appearance domain. Qualitative data were used to inform content for the PSAQ and PRISM, and a modern psychometric approach (Rasch Measurement Theory) was used to develop PRISM and to test POSAS. Overall, PRISM demonstrated the most rigorous design and validation process, however, was limited by the lack of a dedicated appearance domain.
conclusionsPRO instruments to evaluate outcomes in scars exist but vary in terms of concepts measured and psychometric soundness. This review discusses the strengths and weaknesses of existing instruments, highlighting the need for future scar-focused PRO instrument development. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.