|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
Before creation and validation of the FACE-Q by Pusic et al., adverse event types and incidences following facial cosmetic procedures were objectively measured and reported by physicians, potentially leading to misrepresentation of the true patient experience. This article analyzes and compares adverse event data from both FACE-Q and recent review articles, incorporating patient-reported adverse event data to improve patient preparation for facial cosmetic procedures.FACE-Q adverse event data were extracted from peer-reviewed validation articles for face lift, rhinoplasty, and blepharoplasty, and these data were compared against adverse effect risk data published in recent Continuing Medical Education/Maintenance of Certification and other articles regarding the same procedures.The patient-reported adverse event data sets and the physician-reported adverse event data sets do contain overlapping elements, but each data set also contains unique elements. The data sets represent differing viewpoints. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes from the FACE-Q provided incidence data that were otherwise previously not reported.In the growing facial cosmetic surgery industry, patient perspective is critical as a determinant of success; therefore, incorporation of evidence-based patient-reported outcome data will not only improve patient expectations and overall experience, but will also reveal adverse event incidences that were previously unknown. Given that there is incomplete overlap between patient-reported and physician-reported adverse events, presentation of both data sets in the consultation setting will improve patient preparation. Furthermore, use of validated tools such as the FACE-Q will allow surgeons to audit themselves critically.