ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2025
Preoperative awareness of nasal and facial aesthetic deformities among rhinoplasty candidates.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Preoperative anthropometric assessment of nasal aesthetic parameters in iranian rhinoplasty candidates: deviation from conventional normative standards.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: This study primarily aimed to evaluate the preoperative awareness of nasal and facial anatomical deformities among patients scheduled for primary rhinoplasty. The secondary objective was to assess changes in patients' self-perception and aesthetic expectations regarding surgical outcomes following preoperative consultation with the surgeon. Materials and methods: In this prospective cross-sectional study, 56 adult patients seeking primary aesthetic rhinoplasty at a tertiary care center were included. Each participant completed a 10-item anatomical evaluation form. An experienced rhinoplasty surgeon independently evaluated the same parameters. Additionally, participants completed a two-item visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaire both before and after the preoperative consultation. Results: Patients most frequently reported a nasal hump (91%), nasal deviation (89%), and a drooping nasal tip (77%) as their primary concerns. The surgeon most commonly identified a nasal hump (98%), tip ptosis (61%), and nasal deviation (59%). A significant discrepancy was observed between patient and surgeon evaluations of nasal deviation (p < 0.01), as well as in the recognition of extranasal aesthetic regions, particularly the cheek-midface (p = 0.04) and forehead-glabella (p < 0.01) areas. VAS scores for nasal appearance and expected surgical outcomes showed no significant change after the consultation (p = 0.184, p = 0.243). Conclusion: Although there was general agreement between patients and the surgeon regarding nasal deformities, patient awareness of adjacent facial regions remained limited. Furthermore, preoperative counseling alone was insufficient to alter patients' self-perception or aesthetic expectations, highlighting the need for enhanced educational strategies in rhinoplasty planning.
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.