Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30417832›Full record

ArticleBalkan medical journal2019

The Turkish Version of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation Questionnaire: Validation and Clinical Application

Mustafa Çelik, Ahmet Altıntaş

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Balkan medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Validation and Comparative Assessment of Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life Questionnaires Among Indonesian Nasal Fracture Patients Post-rhinoplasty.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Nasal axis lateralization suture technique in crooked nose.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mustafa ÇelikDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Kafkas University School of Medicine, Kars, TurkeyORCID 0000-0003-2610-2622
Ahmet AltıntaşClinic of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Fatih Medical Park Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Fatih University Medical Faculty Hospital · TRKafkas University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: An assessment of rhinoplasty from the patient’s perspective, in terms of satisfaction and quality of life, is quite important because these are the predominant factors indicating the success of rhinoplasty. Aims: To translate the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation into Turkish and then validate the new version for use in Turkish patients. Study Design: Validation study. Methods: We enrolled 30 participants who were able to read and write Turkish and underwent primary rhinoplasty. The control group consisted of 58 healthy volunteers with no need for aesthetic or functional nasal surgery. The reliability of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T was analyzed according to its internal consistency and test-retest reproducibility. Discriminant validity was calculated by comparing the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T scores between the patient and control groups. Responsiveness and sensitivity to changes in rhinoplasty outcomes were analyzed by comparing the patients’ pre- and postoperative Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T scores. Results: The scores for questions 1-6 of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T, as well as the total scores, were significantly lower in the patient group than in the control group (all p<0.05). In the patient group, the scores for questions 1-6 of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T, as well as the total scores, were higher postoperatively than preoperatively (all p<0.05). The scores for each Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T question, as well as the total scores, did not differ significantly with respect to test-retest reproducibility (all p>0.05). The internal consistency of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T was high, as evidenced by Cronbach’s α values of 0.887 preoperatively and 0.798 postoperatively. Conclusion: The Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T constitutes a validated instrument with which to measure rhinoplasty outcomes among Turkish patients.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdultFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesQuality of Health CareReproducibility of ResultsRhinoplastyStatistics, NonparametricSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeTurkeyQuality of lifequestionnairerhinoplastyvalidity and reliability

Identifiers

PMID30417832
PMCPMC6409958
OpenAlexW2900792195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.