SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Balkan Medical Journal / 2019 / Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 2

The Turkish Version of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation Questionnaire: Validation and Clinical Application

Ahmet ALTINTAŞ
Mustafa ÇELİK
Pages
129–133
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Responsiveness and sensitivity to changes in rhinoplasty outcomes were analyzed by comparing the patients’ pre- and postoperative Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T scores.Results: The scores for questions 1-6 of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T, as well as the total scores, were significantly lower in the patient group than in the control group (all p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: An assessment of rhinoplasty from the patient’s perspective, in terms of satisfaction and quality of life, is quite important because these are the predominant factors indicating the success of rhinoplasty.Aims: To translate the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation into Turkish and then validate the new version for use in Turkish patients.Study Design: Validation study.Methods: We enrolled 30 participants who were able to read and write Turkish and underwent primary rhinoplasty.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The control group consisted of 58 healthy volunteers with no need for aesthetic or functional nasal surgery.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Responsiveness and sensitivity to changes in rhinoplasty outcomes were analyzed by comparing the patients’ pre- and postoperative Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T scores.Results: The scores for questions 1-6 of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T, as well as the total scores, were significantly lower in the patient group than in the control group (all p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background: An assessment of rhinoplasty from the patient’s perspective, in terms of satisfaction and quality of life, is quite important because these are the predominant factors indicating the success of rhinoplasty.Aims: To translate the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation into Turkish and then validate the new version for use in Turkish patients.Study Design: Validation study.Methods: We enrolled 30 participants who were able to read and write Turkish and underwent primary rhinoplasty. The control group consisted of 58 healthy volunteers with no need for aesthetic or functional nasal surgery. The reliability of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T was analyzed according to its internal consistency and test-retest reproducibility. Discriminant validity was calculated by comparing the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T scores between the patient and control groups. Responsiveness and sensitivity to changes in rhinoplasty outcomes were analyzed by comparing the patients’ pre- and postoperative Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T scores.Results: The scores for questions 1-6 of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T, as well as the total scores, were significantly lower in the patient group than in the control group (all p

🔖

Cite This Article

ALTINTAŞ, A., ÇELİK, M. (2022). The Turkish Version of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation Questionnaire: Validation and Clinical Application. Balkan Medical Journal, Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 2, 129–133. https://ajindex.com/articles/460946

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Izu SC, Kosugi EM, Brandão KV, Lopes AS, Garcia LB, Suguri VM, et al. Normal values for the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2012;78:76-9.
  2. Izu SC, Kosugi EM, Lopes AS, Brandão KV, Sousa LG, Suguri VM, et al. Validation of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire adapted to Brazilian Portuguese. Qual Life Res 2014;23:953-8.
  3. Rosa F, Lohuis PJFM, Almeida J, Santos M, Oliveira J, Sousa CAE, et al. The Portuguese version of “The Utrecht Questionnaire for outcome assessment in aesthetic rhinoplasty”: validation and clinical application. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2017.
  4. Koybasi S, Bicer YO, Seyhan S, Kesgin S. Satisfaction in rhinoplasty: the possible impact of anxiety and functional outcome. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018;275:729-33.
  5. AlHarethy S, Al-Angari SS, Syouri F, Islam T, Jang YJ. Assessment of satisfaction based on age and gender in functional and aesthetic rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017;274:2809-12.
  6. Freiberg A, Giguere D, Ross DS, Taylor JR, Bell T, Kerluke LD. Are patients satisfied with results from residents performing aesthetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997;100:1824-31.
  7. Sena Esteves S, Gonçalves Ferreira M, Carvalho Almeida J, Abrunhosa J, Almeida E Sousa C. Evaluation of aesthetic and functional outcomes in rhinoplasty surgery: a prospective study. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2017;83:552-7.
  8. Bulut OC, Plinkert PK, Wallner F, Baumann I. Quality of life in functional rhinoplasty: rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation German version (ROE-D). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:2569-73.
  9. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017;274:1807-11. Alsarraf R. Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: A review and new directions. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2000;24:192-7.
  10. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:1417-32.
  11. Kelsey JL, Whittemore AS, Evans AS, Thompson WD. Methods of sampling and estimation of sample size. Methods Observational Epidemiol 1996:311-40.
  12. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:3186-91.
  13. Ünlü H, Günhan K, Uz U, Eser E, Alsarraf R. Rinoplasti Yaşam Kalitesi Ölçeği (ROE) Türkçe Sürümünün Uyum ve Geçerliliği