Outcomes of the first global multidisciplinary consensus meeting including persons living with obesity to standardize patient-reported outcome measurement in obesity treatment research

Quality of life is a key outcome that is not rigorously measured in obesity treatment research due to the lack of standardization of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PRO measures (PROMs). The S.Q.O.T. initiative was founded to Standardize Quality of life measurement in Obesity Treatment. A first face-to-face, international, multidisciplinary consensus meeting was conducted to identify the key PROs and preferred PROMs for obesity treatment research. It comprised of 35 people living with obesity (PLWO) and healthcare providers (HCPs). Formal presentations, nominal group techniques, and modified Delphi exercises were used to develop consensus-based recommendations. The following eight PROs were considered important: self-esteem, physical health/functioning, mental/psychological health, social health, eating, stigma, body image, and excess skin. Self-esteem was considered the most important PRO, particularly for PLWO, while physical health was perceived to be the most important among HCPs. For each PRO, one or more PROMs were selected, except for stigma. This consensus meeting was a first step toward standardizing PROs (what to measure) and PROMs (how to measure) in obesity treatment research. It provides an overview of the key PROs and a first selection of the PROMs that can be used to evaluate these PROs

Bone mineral density patterns of the distal radius and ulna representing the loading history of the wrist joint

Item does not contain fulltex

The long-term effects of force-transmission in an injured wrist, measured with dual-energy X-ray absorphometry- A case report.

Item does not contain fulltext3 p

'Treating the Saddlebag Deformity in Massive Weight Loss Patients:The Vertical Lower Body Lift versus the Lower Body Lift''

The saddlebag deformity remains a persistent and difficult-to-treat problem following body contouring surgery (BCS). A new way to handle the saddlebag deformity is with the vertical lower body lift (VLBL) as described by Pascal [1]. This retrospective cohort study evaluated the overall reconstruction outcome of the VLBL in 16 patients, respectively 32 saddlebags, and compared it to standard LBL. The BODY-Q as well as the Pittsburgh Rating Scale (PRS)-saddlebag scale were used in the evaluation process.The authors showed that surgical outcomes regarding the saddlebag deformity are in favor of the VLBL technique in patients with marked saddlebag deformity. A decrease of 1.16 in mean PRS-saddlebag score and relative change of 61.67% is observed for the VLBL group, while the LBL group shows only a mean decrease of 0.29 and relative change of 21.6%. BODY-Q endpoint and change in scores did not differ between the VLBL and LBL group at 3 months follow-up and were at one year follow-up in favor of the VLBL group in the body appraisal domain. Patients are greatly satisfied with the contour and appearance of their lateral thigh despite the extra scarring that had to be made by using this novel technique. Therefore, the authors advise clinicians to consider performing a VLBL instead of the standard LBL in massive weight loss patients with a notable saddlebag

The Use of the FACE-Q Aesthetic: A Narrative Review

Introduction In the past decade there has been an increasing interest in the field of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) which are now commonly used alongside traditional outcome measures, such as morbidity and mortality. Since the FACE-Q Aesthetic development in 2010, it has been widely used in clinical practice and research, measuring the quality of life and patient satisfaction. It quantifies the impact and change across different aspects of cosmetic facial surgery and minimally invasive treatments. We review how researchers have utilized the FACE-Q Aesthetic module to date, and aim to understand better whether and how it has enhanced our understanding and practice of aesthetic facial procedures.Methods We performed a systematic search of the literature. Publications that used the FACE-Q Aesthetic module to evaluate patient outcomes were included. Publications about the development of PROMs or modifications of the FACE-Q Aesthetic, translation or validation studies of the FACE-Q Aesthetic scales, papers not published in English, reviews, comments/discussions, or letters to the editor were excluded.Results Our search produced 1189 different articles; 70 remained after applying in- and exclusion criteria. Significant findings and associations were further explored. The need for evidence-based patient-reported outcome caused a growing uptake of the FACE-Q Aesthetic in cosmetic surgery and dermatology an increasing amount of evidence concerning facelift surgery, botulinum toxin, rhinoplasty, soft tissue fillers, scar treatments, and experimental areas.Discussion The FACE-Q Aesthetic has been used to contribute substantial evidence about the outcome from the patient perspective in cosmetic facial surgery and minimally invasive treatments. The FACE-Q Aesthetic holds great potential to improve quality of care and may fundamentally change the way we measure success in plastic surgery and dermatology.Level of Evidence III This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266

Streamlining the Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Weight Loss and Body Contouring Patients:Applying Computerized Adaptive Testing to the BODY-Q

Background: The BODY-Q is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure of surgical outcomes in weight loss and body contouring patients. Reducing the length of the BODY-Q assessment could overcome implementation barriers in busy clinics. A shorter BODY-Q could be achieved by using computerized adaptive testing, a method to shorten and tailor assessments while maintaining reliability and accuracy. In this study, the authors apply computerized adaptive testing to the BODY-Q and assess computerized adaptive testing performance in terms of item reduction and accuracy. Methods: Parameters describing the psychometric properties of 138 BODY-Q items (i.e., questions) were derived from the original validation sample (n = 734). The 138 items are arranged into 18 scales reflecting Appearance, Quality of Life, and Experience of Care domains. The authors simulated 1000 administrations of the computerized adaptive testing until a stopping rule, reflecting assessment accuracy of standard error less than 0.55, was met. The authors describe the reduction of assessment length in terms of the mean and range of items administered. The authors assessed accuracy by determining correlation between full test and computerized adaptive testing scores. Results: The authors ran 54 simulations. Mean item reduction was 36.9 percent (51 items; range, 48 to 138 items). Highest item reduction was achieved for the Experience of Care domain (56.2 percent, 22.5 items). Correlation between full test scores and the BODY-Q computerized adaptive test scores averaged 0.99. Conclusions: Substantial item reduction is possible by using BODY-Q computerized adaptive testing. Reduced assessment length using BODY-Q computerized adaptive testing could reduce patient burden while preserving the accuracy of clinical patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing weight loss and body contouring operations