The Laryngoscope · 2025
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Maxillofacial Trauma: A Scoping Review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zebolsky Aaron L, Krebs Jillian P, Behymer Nicholas, Clarke Travis, Eid Anas
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The majority of maxillofacial trauma research is limited to objective and clinician-rated outcome metrics. This review was designed to characterize topic domains of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) previously used in the field.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and CINAHL.
REVIEW METHODS: Publications through March 2025 reporting at least one PROM in maxillofacial trauma patients were included. Study metadata was recorded, and survey instruments were classified as established PROMs or "custom surveys." Each instrument was analyzed, and key topic domains were characterized. PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed.
RESULTS: Ninety-six studies from 23 different countries were identified. They included patients with mandible fractures (n = 38, 39.6%), midface fractures (n = 16, 16.7%), or both (n = 42, 43.8%). There were 73 studies that used 39 unique, established PROMs. These incorporated six key domains: Psychosocial Function (n = 32, 82.1%), Facial Function (n = 13, 33.3%), Facial Appearance (n = 9, 23.1%), Pain (n = 15, 38.5%), Daily Tasks (n = 14, 35.9%), and Satisfaction with Outcome (n = 5, 12.8%). The most common instruments were the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14), Mandible Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), and the Short Form (SF) survey. Forty studies developed at least one custom survey question. These were more likely to address Facial Function (n = 23, 57.5%), Pain (n = 20, 50%), Facial Appearance (n = 15, 37.5%), and Satisfaction with Outcome (n = 13, 32.5%).
CONCLUSION: PROMs used in maxillofacial trauma research are heterogeneous. Most address psychosocial function while only a minority address facial function and appearance. The six key domains identified here may be used to guide the development of novel PROMs.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and CINAHL.
REVIEW METHODS: Publications through March 2025 reporting at least one PROM in maxillofacial trauma patients were included. Study metadata was recorded, and survey instruments were classified as established PROMs or "custom surveys." Each instrument was analyzed, and key topic domains were characterized. PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed.
RESULTS: Ninety-six studies from 23 different countries were identified. They included patients with mandible fractures (n = 38, 39.6%), midface fractures (n = 16, 16.7%), or both (n = 42, 43.8%). There were 73 studies that used 39 unique, established PROMs. These incorporated six key domains: Psychosocial Function (n = 32, 82.1%), Facial Function (n = 13, 33.3%), Facial Appearance (n = 9, 23.1%), Pain (n = 15, 38.5%), Daily Tasks (n = 14, 35.9%), and Satisfaction with Outcome (n = 5, 12.8%). The most common instruments were the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14), Mandible Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), and the Short Form (SF) survey. Forty studies developed at least one custom survey question. These were more likely to address Facial Function (n = 23, 57.5%), Pain (n = 20, 50%), Facial Appearance (n = 15, 37.5%), and Satisfaction with Outcome (n = 13, 32.5%).
CONCLUSION: PROMs used in maxillofacial trauma research are heterogeneous. Most address psychosocial function while only a minority address facial function and appearance. The six key domains identified here may be used to guide the development of novel PROMs.