|The questionnaire we used to select patients. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)|
To prove the impact of UFL treatment, first of all we need a validated tool. FDA recommends patient-reported outcome instruments or PRO as objective evidence. PRO as defined by FDA
is any report of the status of a patient’s health condition that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient’s response by a clinician or anyone else.
One of the PRO instruments available for upper facial lines is the FLO-11 questionnaire. But unfortunately FLO-11 is not validated to the FDA standards. You don’t usually find many good qualitative studies in cosmetic dermatology. But this study (1) stands apart and has been quite methodical in validating the FLO-11 questionnaire.
Yet another study in the same journal (2) presents another questionnaire called Aesthetic Dermatology and Emotional Well-being (DEBIE), designed to know the general population motivations with regard to skin appearance. Though DEBIE is quite long, the authors have done a good job in validating the questionnaire using qualitative research principles. An abridged version may be more practical.
Both these questionnaires will be useful for those planning patient satisfaction studies in cosmetic dermatology. All we need now is proof. Botulinum Toxin for UFL is fortunately our best shot at objective proof.
1. Yaworsky A, Daniels S, Tully S, Beddingfield F 3rd, Kowalski J, Fitzgerald K, Somogyi C, Burgess SM. The impact of upper facial lines and psychological impact of crow’s feet lines: content validation of the Facial Line Outcomes (FLO-11)
Questionnaire. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2014 Dec;13(4):297-306. doi: 10.1111/jocd.12117. PubMed PMID: 25399622. ↩
2. Martínez-González MC, Martínez-González RA, Guerra-Tapia A. Aesthetic dermatology and emotional well-being questionnaire. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2014
Dec;13(4):336-45. doi: 10.1111/jocd.12109. PubMed PMID: 25399627. ↩
Add Your Comments/Suggestions/Criticisms! | View Comments | Links to this post