Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Aug 8;13(16):4642.
doi: 10.3390/jcm13164642.

The Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) Questionnaire in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Piotr Rot  1 , Sandra Krzywdzińska  1 , Paweł Grab  2 , Dariusz Jurkiewicz  1 , Aldona Chloupek  2 , Maria Sobol  3
Affiliations
Review

The Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) Questionnaire in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Piotr Rot et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Background/Objectives: This study aims to systematize the ability to use ROE to assess rhinoplasty outcomes in surgical approaches. Methods: The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for the following terms: "rhinoplasty and outcome" OR "prognosis" OR "outcomes" OR "satisfaction" OR "quality of life" OR QoL "rhinoplasty outcome evaluation". The timeframe of the included studies is from 2011 to May 2024. Ultimately, 17 papers were included in the conducted meta-analysis of ROE scores between pre- and post-treatment data. Results The mean value of the pre-treatment ROE score was 33.50 with a CI of 29.46 to 37.53 (p < 0.001), while the post-treatment ROE was 69.60 with a CI of 63.07 to 76.14 (t ≤ 6 months). At t = 12 months it was 80.25 with a CI of 75.79 to 84.70 (p < 0.001). The mean difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment scores (t ≤ 6 months) was -36.31 with a CI of -40.93 to -31.69. The mean difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment scores for 6 m < t ≤ 12 m was -47.36 with a CI of -53.89 to -40.83. Conclusions: The result was statistically significant (p < 0.001).

Keywords: ROE; meta-analysis; quality of life; the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Chart 1
Chart 1
Flow chart for inclusion of articles.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Sensitivity analysis for the effect of individual studies (given named study in the Y axis is omitted) on the pooled differences of ROE score. CI (confidence interval). (A) pre-treatment vs. post-treatment t = 12 m, (B) mean value of ROE score t = 12 m.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Sensitivity analysis for the effect of individual studies (given named study in the Y axis is omitted) on the pooled differences of ROE score. CI (confidence interval). (A) pre-treatment vs. post-treatment t = 12 m, (B) mean value of ROE score t = 12 m.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The pre-treatment ROE scores.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The post-treatment ROE scores (t ≤ 6 months).
Figure 4
Figure 4
The post-treatment ROE scores (t = 12 months).
Figure 5
Figure 5
The difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment scores 6 months < t ≤ 12 months.
Figure 6
Figure 6
The difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment scores for 0 m < t ≤ 6 m.
Figure 7
Figure 7
The subgroup analysis for follow-up time.
Figure 8
Figure 8
The subgroup analysis of difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment (3 months and 6 months).
Figure 9
Figure 9
The subgroup analysis t = 12 m according to age groups.
Figure 10
Figure 10
The subgroup analysis of difference between pre-treatment and post-t = 12 m according to age group.
Figure 11
Figure 11
The subgroup analysis t = 12 m according to surgical methods.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Funnel plots before (A,C) and after (B,D) applying the trim-and-fill method; imputed missing studies (red dots) t = 12 m.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Funnel plots before (A,C) and after (B,D) applying the trim-and-fill method; imputed missing studies (red dots) t = 12 m.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Funnel plots before (A,C) and after (B,D) applying the trim-and-fill method; imputed missing studies (red dots) t = 12 m.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rohrich R.J., Villanueva N.L., Small K.H., Pezeshk R.A. Implications of facial asymmetry in rhinoplasty. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017;140:510–516. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003606. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ghorbani F., Ahmadi H., Davar G. Patient dissatisfaction following rhinoplasty: A 10-year experience in Iran. Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2023;45:7. doi: 10.1186/s40902-022-00369-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Soler Z.M., Jones R., Le P., Rudmik L., Mattos J.L., Nguyen S.A., Schlosser R.J. Sino-Nasal outcome test-22 outcomes after sinus surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Laryngoscope. 2018;128:581–592. doi: 10.1002/lary.27008. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gandomi B., Bayat A., Kazemei T. Outcomes of septoplasty in young adults: The Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness study. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2010;31:189–192. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2009.02.023. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Izu S.C., Kosugi E.M., Brandão K.V., Lopes A.S., Garcia L.B.S., Suguri V.M., Gregório L.C. Valores de normalidade para o questionário Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;78:76–79. doi: 10.1590/S1808-86942012000400015. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources