Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33515277›Full record

Trial reportArchives of dermatological research2021

To see or not to see: Impact of viewing facial skin cancer defects prior to reconstruction.

Inge J Veldhuizen, Erica H Lee, Nicholas R Kurtansky, Lucy J van Hensbergen, Stephen W Dusza, Marleen C Hölscher, René R W J van der Hulst, Maarten J Ottenhof, Andrea L Pusic, Maarten M Hoogbergen

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Archives of dermatological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Inge J VeldhuizenDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623EJ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Erica H LeeDermatology Division, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Nicholas R KurtanskyDermatology Division, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Lucy J van HensbergenDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623EJ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Stephen W DuszaDermatology Division, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Marleen C HölscherDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623EJ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
René R W J van der HulstDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Nutrim, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Maarten J OttenhofDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623EJ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Andrea L PusicPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Maarten M HoogbergenDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623EJ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. maarten.hoogbergen@catharinaziekenhuis.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9546-4155
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USRadboud University Nijmegen · NLBrigham and Women's Hospital · USMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient expectations of the scar after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) are often not realistic, leading to subsequent psychosocial sequelae such as anxiety, depression, and avoidance of social situations. When patient expectations are not met, this may also contribute to a decrease in patient satisfaction after surgery. Therefore, altering expectation levels may change patient satisfaction and psychosocial distress levels after surgery. To assess whether patient satisfaction improves in patients after MMS when patients view the surgical defect prior to reconstruction. Patients undergoing facial MMS between December 2017 and September 2019 were included. Patients received or did not receive a mirror after MMS to view the surgical defect before closing the defect. Patients were asked to complete the Dutch FACE-Q Skin Cancer before, one-week, three-months, and one-year after MMS. A total of 113 patients where included. One-hundred-eight (95.6%), 113 (100%), and 93 (82.3%) questionnaires were completed, one-week, three-months, and one-year follow-up, respectively. Satisfaction with facial appearance and appraisal of scars significantly improved over time for all patients, no such improvement was seen for appearance-related distress. Female patients who looked in the mirror had higher satisfaction with facial appearance than female patients who did not look in the mirror. Also, lower appearance-related distress scores were seen in patients who looked in the mirror prior to a flap reconstruction. Showing the defect in the mirror prior to the reconstruction may result in higher patient satisfaction in female patients and patients before undergoing a flap reconstruction.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCicatrixEstheticsFaceFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMohs SurgeryNetherlandsPatient SatisfactionPlastic Surgery ProceduresSeverity of Illness IndexSkin NeoplasmsSurgical FlapsFacial neoplasmFollow-up studyMohs surgeryPatient reported outcomePatient satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID33515277
OpenAlexW3121165954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.