Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The aim of this study was to validate the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire adapted to the Brazilian Portuguese.
A prospective study was conducted with ROE administration to 56 patients submitted to rhinoplasty (preoperatively, and then 15-day and 90-day postoperatively) and 100 volunteers without the need or desire of cosmetic or functional nasal surgery. Reliability (internal consistency and test–retest reproducibility), validity, responsiveness and clinical interpretability were assessed.
Rhinoplasty patients’ mean preoperative score was 7.14, 15 days post-op 17.73 and 90 days post-op 20.50, while controls presented 17.94 points (p < 0.0001), showing the questionnaire’s validity and responsiveness. Internal consistency was 0.86. Inter- and intra-examiner test–retest reproducibility was 0.90 and 0.94, respectively. The effect size caused by the surgery was considered large (15 days post-op compared to the preoperative score: effect size = 3.22; 90 days post-op compared to preoperative score: effect size = 4.06). The minimally important difference was 8.67 points, so changes smaller than 9 points in ROE might not be perceived by the patient as an improvement or worsening.
The Brazilian Portuguese version of ROE is a valid instrument to assess results in rhinoplasty patients.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Moolenburgh, S. E., Mureau, M. A., & Hofer, S. O. (2008). Aesthetic outcome after nasal reconstruction: Patient versus panel perception. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 61(12), 1459–1464. CrossRef
Alsarraf, R. (2000). Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: A review and new directions. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 23(3), 192–197. CrossRef
Hopkins, C. (2009). Patient reported outcome measures in rhinology. Rhinology, 47(1), 10–17. PubMed
The WHOQOL Group. (1998). The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Social Science and Medicine, 46(12), 1569–1585. CrossRef
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. CrossRef
Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments : Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193–205. CrossRef
Klatchoian, D. A., Len, C. A., Terreri, M. T., Silva, M., Itamoto, C. H., Ciconelli, R. M., et al. (2008). Quality of life of children and adolescents from São Paulo: reliability and validity of the Brazilian version of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory version 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Jornal de Pediatria, 84(4), 308–315. PubMedCrossRef
Fonseca, E. S., Camargo, A. L., Castro, R. A., Sartori, M. G., Fonseca, M. C., Lima, G. R., et al. (2005). Validation of a quality of life questionnaire (King′s Health Questionnaire) in Brazilian women with urinary incontinence. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, 27(5), 235–242. CrossRef
Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health (Oxford, England), 27(3), 281–291. CrossRef
- Validation of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire adapted to Brazilian Portuguese
Suemy Cioffi Izu
Eduardo Macoto Kosugi
Alessandra Stanquini Lopes
Karen Vitols Brandão
Leonardo Bomediano Garcia Sousa
Vinícius Magalhães Suguri
Luis Carlos Gregório
- Springer International Publishing