ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review Across Disciplines and Geographical Locations.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recovery Phenotypes After Head-and-Neck Reconstructive Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Comparing Free-Flap and Pedicled-Flap Pathways.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Global research trends and thematic evolution in robotic craniofacial and facial reconstruction and its enabling digital technologies: a bibliometric and visualisation study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become an integral part of outcome evaluation in reconstructive microsurgery. This study explored the usage of PROMs in microsurgical oncological head and neck reconstruction across surgical specialties and geographic regions. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science to identify studies reporting on adult patients undergoing oncological head and neck free flap reconstruction. Data extracted included PROM tools used, study demographics, surgical disciplines involved, procedural details, and outcomes. Results: Of 5015 screened studies, 354 (n = 30,369 patients) met the inclusion criteria. A total of 94 PROM tools were identified. The most frequently used were the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (34.75%), nonvalidated tools (25.99%), and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Head and Neck Module 35 (22.32%). Donor site-specific PROMs were infrequently used (22%), though more frequently used when plastic and reconstructive surgeons were involved (31.11% versus 15.53%, Conclusions: Substantial heterogeneity exists in the use of PROMs in head and neck reconstruction, with variations driven by specialty and region. This lack of standardization hinders meaningful cross-study comparisons and the development of robust quality benchmarks. A unified, validated PROM framework is urgently needed to support international evidence-based practice. Future efforts should prioritize interdisciplinary collaboration and incorporate donor-site evaluation to comprehensively assess outcomes in oncological head and neck reconstruction.
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.