Best Practices for FACE-Q Aesthetics Research: A Systematic Review of Study Methodology

Abstract

Background The FACE-Q Aesthetics module is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that evaluates perspectives on facial aesthetic treatments. Improper administration and poor study methodology can compromise the validity and interpretation of this PROM. Objectives This systematic review sought to evaluate the administration and scoring of the FACE-Q Aesthetics scales within the literature. Methods A search of Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed on December 20, 2022 with the assistance of a health-research librarian (CRD42022383676). Studies that examined facial aesthetic interventions using the FACE-Q Aesthetics module as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included for analysis. Results There were 114 studies included. The Face Overall (n=52, 45.6%), Psychological (n=45, 39.4%), and Social (n=43, 37.7%) scales were most frequently reported. Errors in FACE-Q administration were identified in 30 (26.3%) studies. The most common error was the presentation of raw ordinal scores rather than the converted Q score (n=23). Most studies reported a time horizon for their primary analysis (n=76, 66.7%); however, only four studies provided a rationale for this selection. Sample size calculations for the primary outcome were rarely performed (n=9, 7.9%). Conclusions There continues to be limitations in PROM administration and the quality of articles that report FACE-Q Aesthetic scale data. The authors suggest that future investigators using the FACE-Q refer to the User’s Guide regarding administration and scoring of this scale, report a rationale for the study time horizon and provide an a priori sample size calculation for the primary outcome of interest.

Extending the Range of Measurement for Minimally Invasive Treatments by Adding New Concepts to FACE-Q Aesthetics Scales

“…13,14 A recent systematic review showed that 114 studies had used one or more FACE-Q Aesthetics scales, and that the Satisfaction with Face Overall 6 and Psychological Functional 9 scales were the most frequently used (ie, 52 studies and 45 studies, respectively). 15 In 2020, both scales were qualified as a medical device development tool by the USA Food and Drug Administration, with Face Overall recommended as a co-primary or secondary end point in clinical trials, and Psychological Function as an ancillary end point. 16 Since FACE-Q Aesthetics was developed, the global medical aesthetics market has expanded dramatically.…”