Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39980598›Full record

ArticleJPRAS open2025

Comparison of clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures in 95 abdominoplasty cases using BODY-Q and MCCRO-Q.

Samuel Thomas Kitching, Claudia Rocco, Rachel Harwood, Gary Ross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JPRAS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Samuel Thomas KitchingSchool of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M14 4PX, UK.
Claudia RoccoFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2SJ, UK.
Rachel HarwoodStatistics Department, Research and Innovation, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Gary RossSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and clinician-reported outcome measures (CROMs) are not routinely compared and they could be used to assess outcomes and aid patient selection and informed consent. Between July 2016 and February 2020, we performed a cohort study comparing PROM versus CROM scores in 95 abdominoplasty cases with all patients undergoing psychological assessment using the Royal Free Hospital and Centre for Appearance Research (RoFCAR) screening tool. Patients and clinicians described significantly improved outcomes from an abdominoplasty procedure (p<0.001; p<0.001), and patients also derived psychological benefits with improved RoFCAR scores (p<0.001). Patients reported a significantly greater improvement between pre- and post-operative outcomes as compared to the clinicians (p=0.017). Clinicians reported worse outcomes in patients with body mass index >30 kg/m

Indexed as

AbdominoplastyClinician-reportedOutcome measurePatient-reported

Identifiers

PMID39980598
PMCPMC11840526

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.