Response to 'The FACE-Q: The Importance of Full Disclosure and Sound Methodology in Outcomes Studies'
| Autor: | Andrea L. Pusic, Vivek Panchapakesan, Stefan J. Cano, Anne F. Klassen |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2014 |
| Předmět: |
Male
Gerontology Aging medicine.medical_specialty Research program Psychometrics media_common.quotation_subject Face (sociological concept) Cosmetic Techniques Outcome (game theory) Surveys and Questionnaires Humans Rejuvenation Medicine Full disclosure media_common Selection bias business.industry General Medicine Plastic Surgery Procedures Skin Aging Term (time) Patient recruitment Patient Satisfaction Quality of Life Female Surgery Engineering ethics Outcomes research business |
| Zdroj: | Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 34:628-631 |
| ISSN: | 1527-330X 1090-820X |
| DOI: | 10.1177/1090820x14528509 |
| Popis: | We are writing in response to Dr Swanson's letter “FACE-Q and the Importance of Full Disclosure and Sound Methodology in Outcomes Studies.”1 We were disappointed Swanson found so little positive to say about a research program that was shaped both by the involvement of dozens of clinicians and the opinions and voices of hundreds of patients. We developed the FACE-Q in a transparent, scientifically rigorous fashion through the application of sound methodology and are confident that the FACE-Q provides a valuable tool for the advancement of outcomes research and evidence-based practice in aesthetic surgery.2 Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments are increasingly deployed as part of significant clinical decisions. Such assessment tools require serious attention and careful development to ensure that they generate valid, reliable data.3 This approach is generally understood by researchers, clinicians, policy makers, and governments.4–6 The methodology for developing PRO instruments not only is well established but also has been created mainly outside the plastic surgery field. In developing the FACE-Q, we have meticulously followed internationally accepted guidelines.7 Our study design, patient recruitment processes, and analysis techniques are accordingly appropriate,8 and all our work has been strictly peer-reviewed, beginning with grant submission through publication. As we acknowledged in our article, our study has certain limitations; however, many concerns raised by Swanson regarding methodology (consecutive patients, selection bias, confounders, etc) are misguided. These terms refer to a clinical study's validity, where validity —internal and external—is a technical term related to the magnitude of bias.9 The term validity when … |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|