ReviewAnnals of maxillofacial surgery
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Rhinoplasty Using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation Scale.
Review in Annals of maxillofacial surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safe and Integrated Practices in Rhinoplasty: A Contemporary Perspective on Function, Aesthetics, and Patient Safety.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Functional and cosmetic outcome after Septorhinoplasty - A retrospective study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Assessment of Postoperative Satisfaction in Patients Following Rhinoplasty: A Cross-sectional Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Normative Values of Rhinology Questionnaires in Young Adults: A Tool to Identify Candidates for Rhinoplasty.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Development of a prognostic prediction model and visualization system for autologous costal cartilage rhinoplasty: an automated machine learning approach.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- The Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) Questionnaire in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Bridging the Gap: Understanding Appalachian Patient Satisfaction in Cosmetic Rhinoplasty.Cureus · 2024Article
- Oral Isotretinoin Treatment in Rhinoplasty: A Review.World journal of plastic surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose was to evaluate the role and impact of the rhinoplasty outcome evaluation (ROE) in rhinoplasty. Objectives: To systematically review the ability of ROE to assess rhinoplasty outcome in the very recent surgical approaches. Data Sources: Searching MESH terms "rhinoplasty" and "rhinoplasty and ROE" on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, and other major literature databases. Study Eligibility Criteria: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses model was adopted for eligibility criteria. Participants and Interventions: A first large screening on 1,660 papers allowed the final retrieval of 896 reports, of which only 101 were eligible for all the inclusion criteria, which allowed finally to select a group of 12 reports published in the time range 2018-2021. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: Meta-regression with Durbin-Watson test, checking of meta-analysis bias with Rosenthal's estimator, and heterogeneity through the Results: Twelve eligible and qualified papers were included in the meta-analysis, out of 1,263 patients, from 1,660 papers. ROE confirmed previous reports about its ability to discriminate preoperative from postoperative outcome (50/100), as from the different rhinoplasty approaches, a value very close to the functional Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale. This study strengthens the role of ROE in the evaluation of rhinoplasty outcomes encouraging further research to improve ROE scale on different cultural habits and geographical areas. Limitations: The main limitations were due to the weak inclusion and exclusion criteria, methodological flaws with the statistical analysis, and poor data synthesis and evaluation in many papers about ROE.
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.