Background Comparative studies have shown little statistical difference in outcomes following rhinoplasty, demonstrating near equivalent results across all surgical techniques. Cross-study comparisons of these trials are difficult because variation in outcome reporting prevents statistical pooling and analysis. Objectives The authors sought to identify all outcomes and outcome measures used to evaluate postoperative results in rhinoplasty. Methods An extensive computerized database search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed; all trials involving n ≥ 20 patients, aged 18 years and older undergoing a primary, open rhinoplasty procedure, were included for review. Results Of the 3235 citations initially screened, 72 studies met the stated inclusion criteria. A total of 53 unique outcomes and 55 postoperative outcome measures were identified. Outcomes were divided into 6 unique domains: objective signs, subjective symptom severity, physical function related to activities of daily living, patient satisfaction, surgeon satisfaction, and quality of life. The identified outcome measures consisted of 5 nasal-specific, author-reported instruments; 5 nasal specific, patient-reported instruments; 5 patient-reported, generic instruments; and 40 author-generated instruments. Of the outcome measures identified, the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation, Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22, and FACE-Q were the only instruments to demonstrate adequate validity, reliability, and responsiveness to change in patients who underwent a rhinoplasty procedure. Conclusions There is heterogeneity in the outcomes and outcome measures employed to assess postsurgical outcomes following rhinoplasty. A standardized core outcome set is urgently needed to make it possible for future investigators to compare results of various techniques in rhinoplasty surgery. Level of Evidence: 2

Most published clinical research is faulty because of many reasons, one being faulty design. A remedy to this problem is the correct utilization of the PICOT (population, intervention, comparative intervention, outcome and time horizon) format in the design of a clinical research question. One element of the PICOT format, “outcome,” has not been assessed adequately in aesthetic surgery. In this review, we found that in the last decade of all randomized controlled trials and comparative studies published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal, only about half specified a primary outcome. Regrettably, only 40% reported both a primary outcome and justification for choosing this outcome. This poses a credibility issue with the conclusions of the majority of published studies. There is an urgent need to develop critical outcome sets for aesthetic procedures to be utilized by future investigators. With such a critical outcome set, we will be able to pool the results of multiple studies on the same subject and reach conclusive results.