IADR Abstract Archives
Facial sensory alterations and PROMs in Oral and maxillofacial Surgery
Objectives: Objective: To assess the completeness of reporting of Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) in studies evaluating facial sensory alterations consecutive to OMFS procedures, with a special emphasis on health related quality of life and measures of the magnitude of the sensory impairment.
Methods: Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Scopus, CINAHL, Lilacs, and Scielo until November 2019, to identify primary studies evaluating facial sensory alterations in OMFS, and the reporting PROMs. A pair of reviewers independently screened citations at a title and abstract, and full-text level for eligibility. Data extraction included the identification of any PROMs reported, checking for further evidence of the PROMs nature of the outcome by using the E-Provide database ((https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/) and any evidence reported of their measurement properties (validity, reliability, and responsiveness). In addition, we collected information regarding the nature and reason for the sensory alteration and participants’ demographics.
Results: Results: Out of 1,887 citations reviewed in Title & Abstract, 106 were selected for full-text screening, and finally 29 studies was included. The most common PROMs used were the visual analogue scale (VAS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Oral Impact on Daily Performance (OIDP), the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) and the version of that same instrument including 49 items (OHIP-49). It was important to notice that the cited instruments were used beyond the scope of their construct or intended purpose. When the magnitude of the sensory alteration was evaluated, 100% of the authors used VAS. Citations or evidence of measurement properties of the PROMs were infrequently reported.
Conclusions: Conclusions: We identified large inconsistency as to whether PROMs were included when evaluating facial sensory alterations, and when positively included, which PROMs are expected to be used in primary studies. Such inconsistency and reporting limitations prevent systematic reviewers and other researchers from effectively assess the impact of facial sensory alteration from a patient perspective.
Methods: Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Scopus, CINAHL, Lilacs, and Scielo until November 2019, to identify primary studies evaluating facial sensory alterations in OMFS, and the reporting PROMs. A pair of reviewers independently screened citations at a title and abstract, and full-text level for eligibility. Data extraction included the identification of any PROMs reported, checking for further evidence of the PROMs nature of the outcome by using the E-Provide database ((https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/) and any evidence reported of their measurement properties (validity, reliability, and responsiveness). In addition, we collected information regarding the nature and reason for the sensory alteration and participants’ demographics.
Results: Results: Out of 1,887 citations reviewed in Title & Abstract, 106 were selected for full-text screening, and finally 29 studies was included. The most common PROMs used were the visual analogue scale (VAS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Oral Impact on Daily Performance (OIDP), the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) and the version of that same instrument including 49 items (OHIP-49). It was important to notice that the cited instruments were used beyond the scope of their construct or intended purpose. When the magnitude of the sensory alteration was evaluated, 100% of the authors used VAS. Citations or evidence of measurement properties of the PROMs were infrequently reported.
Conclusions: Conclusions: We identified large inconsistency as to whether PROMs were included when evaluating facial sensory alterations, and when positively included, which PROMs are expected to be used in primary studies. Such inconsistency and reporting limitations prevent systematic reviewers and other researchers from effectively assess the impact of facial sensory alteration from a patient perspective.