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
. 2024 Jan 23;33(3):403-418.
doi: 10.1177/22925503231225480. eCollection 2025 Aug.

Measuring the Impact of Surgical and Non-surgical Facial Cosmetic Interventions Using FACE-Q Aesthetic Module Scales: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lucas Gallo  1 , Patrick Kim  1 , Isabella F Churchill  2 , Matteo Gallo  1 , Morgan Yuan  3 , Sophocles H Voineskos  3 , Achilles Thoma  4   5 , Andrea L Pusic  6 , Anne F Klassen  7 , Stefan J Cano  8
Affiliations

Measuring the Impact of Surgical and Non-surgical Facial Cosmetic Interventions Using FACE-Q Aesthetic Module Scales: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lucas Gallo et al. Plast Surg (Oakv). .

Abstract
in English, French

Background: The FACE-Q Aesthetic module measures patient-important outcomes following surgical and non-surgical facial cosmetic procedures. Objective: The primary aim of this systematic review was to summarize the pre- to post-intervention mean differences of facial aesthetic interventions that evaluate outcomes using the FACE-Q Face Overall, Psychological, and Social scales. Methods: Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched on December 20, 2022 with the assistance of a health-research librarian (CRD42023404238). Studies that examined any surgical or non-surgical facial aesthetic intervention in adult patients and used FACE-Q Aesthetics Face Overall, Psychological, and/or Social scales to measure participants before and after treatment were included for analysis. Results: Of 914 potential articles screened, 35 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies evaluated surgical (n = 22, 62.9%) versus non-surgical facial cosmetic interventions (n = 13, 37.1%). Rhinoplasty [37.0 points, 95% CI 24.7-49.3, P < 0.01] demonstrated the largest weighted increase in Face Overall scores, whereas the largest increase in Psychological [67.1 points, 95% CI 62.9-71.3, P < 0.01] and Social [63.9 points, 95% CI 53.2-74.6, P < 0.01] scores was demonstrated by a single study evaluating surgical forehead lifts, respectively. Conclusions: This meta-analysis leverages FACE-Q Aesthetic module scoring to present the expected mean differences in Face Overall, Psychological, and Social scale scores for various surgical and non-surgical facial cosmetic interventions. The findings from this review may be used to indirectly compare interventions and contribute to sample size calculations when planning future studies.

Historique: Le module esthétique FACE-Q mesure les résultats importants pour le patient après des interventions esthétiques chirurgicales et non chirurgicales du visage. Objectif: L’objectif primaire de la présente analyse systématique consistait à résumer les différences moyennes d’interventions esthétiques du visage avant et après l’opération, dont les résultats étaient évalués à l’aide des échelles globales, psychologiques et sociales de l’esthétique faciale FACE-Q. méthodologie: Le 20 décembre 2022, les chercheurs ont fouillé les bases de données Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane et Web of Science avec l’aide d’un bibliothécaire spécialisé en recherche en santé (CRD42023404238). Les études qui portaient sur toute intervention esthétique chirurgicale ou non chirurgicale du visage chez des patients adultes et qui faisaient appel aux échelles globales, psychologiques ou sociales de l’esthétique faciale FACE-Q pour mesurer les participants avant et après leur traitement ont été incluses dans l’analyse. Résultats: Sur les 914 articles potentiels extraits, 35 études respectaient les critères d’inclusion. La plupart évaluaient les interventions esthétiques chirurgicales (n = 22, 62,9%) du visage par rapport aux interventions non chirurgicales (n = 13, 37,1%). La rhinoplastie [37,0 points, IC à 95%, 24,7 à 49,3, P < 0,01] a obtenu la plus forte progression pondérée des scores globaux totaux, tandis que la plus forte progression des scores psychologiques [67,1 points, IC à 95%, 62,9 à 71,3, P < 0,01] et sociaux [63,9 points, IC à 95%, 53,2 à 74,6, P < 0,01] a été établie par une seule étude évaluant les redrapages du front. Conclusion: La présente méta-analyse a tiré parti des scores du module esthétique FACE-Q pour présenter les différences moyennes anticipées des scores des échelles globales, psychologiques et sociales de diverses interventions esthétiques chirurgicales et non chirurgicales du visage. Les observations tirées de la présente analyse pourraient être utilisées pour procéder à une comparaison indirecte des interventions et contribuer aux calculs des tailles d’échantillons lors de la planification de prochaines études.

Keywords: Aesthetics; FACE-Q; meta-analysis; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
PRISMA flow diagram of included studies.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Forest plot for surgical interventions with FACE-Q Face Overall scale outcomes.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Forest plot for surgical interventions with FACE-Q Psychological scale outcomes.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Forest plot for surgical interventions with FACE-Q Social scale outcomes.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Forest plot for non-surgical interventions with FACE-Q Face Overall scale outcomes.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Forest plot for non-surgical interventions with FACE-Q Psychological scale outcomes.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Forest plot for non-surgical interventions with FACE-Q Social scale outcomes.
Figure 8.
Figure 8.
FACE-Q pre-intervention and post-intervention face overall scale responses, by item and response category. (a) Blepharoplasty; (b) non-surgical Facial rejuvenation procedures.
Figure 9.
Figure 9.
FACE-Q pre-intervention and post-intervention psychological scale responses, by item and response category. (a) Facelift; (b) non-surgical facial rejuvenation procedures.
Figure 10.
Figure 10.
FACE-Q pre-intervention and post-intervention social scale responses, by item and response category. (a) Rhinoplasty; (b) non-surgical facial rejuvenation procedures.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Qportfolio. FACE-Q | Aesthetics - Q-Portfolio MEASURING WHAT MATTERS TO PATIENTS. Accessed May 20 2023, https://qportfolio.org/face-q/aesthetics/.
    1. Hibler BP, Schwitzer J, Rossi AM. Assessing improvement of facial appearance and quality of life after minimally-invasive cosmetic dermatology procedures using the FACE-Q scales. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15(1):62–67. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ottenhof MJ, Veldhuizen IJ, Hensbergen L, et al. The use of the FACE-Q aesthetic: a narrative review. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2022;46(6):2769-2780. doi: 10.1007/s00266-022-02974-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hoffman L, Fabi S. Look better, feel better, live better? The impact of minimally invasive aesthetic procedures on satisfaction with appearance and psychosocial wellbeing. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022;15(5):47. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Schwitzer JA, et al. Development and psychometric validation of the FACE-Q skin, lips, and facial rhytids appearance scales and adverse effects checklists for cosmetic procedures. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(4):443–451. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources