ReviewOTO open
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Mohs Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.
Review in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Study Design, Reconstructive Modalities, and Patient-Reported Outcome Documentation in a Curated Corpus of Facial Basal Cell Carcinoma Reconstruction Studies: An Exploratory Meta-Research Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mohs Surgery vs. Wide Local Excision for Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: Comparing Recurrence Rates, Economic Value, and Aesthetic Outcomes.Journal of cancer science and clinical therapeutics · 2026Article
- Advantages of Mohs Surgery in the Treatment of NMSC in the Head and Neck District.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) and subsequent reconstructive procedures for the treatment of facial nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) significantly impact quality of life (QoL). A validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for patients who undergo Mohs reconstruction is not yet established. This study aims to systematically assess the quality of existing PROMs to determine their effectiveness in capturing the challenges faced after Mohs reconstruction for facial NMSC. Data Sources: A systematic review following established Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines was performed. Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched using keywords relevant to MMS, NMSC, facial reconstruction, QoL, and PROMs. Review Methods: Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to compile eligible PROMs. Methodological quality and psychometric properties of PROMs were evaluated using COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results: Of 2997 articles, 78 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 45 studies utilized a PROM as an outcome measure, and 33 reported PROM development or validation. COSMIN assessment demonstrated that the FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module and Facial Skin Cancer Index have the strongest validation. The Mohs Reconstruction Questionnaire-12 (MRQ-12) was the only PROM specific to this population of interest; however, it has not undergone psychometric property assessment. Conclusion: Various PROMs have been utilized to assess QoL for patients undergoing facial reconstructive surgery after MMS. A clinically validated PROM specific to this patient population is required to gain deeper insight into these emotional impacts. Further validation and psychometric testing of the MRQ-12 may be beneficial.
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.