Journal archive · Outcomes, satisfaction and psychology · 2020
Erratum: Assessment of Rhinoplasty Outcomes with FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module: Norwegian Linguistic Validation and Clinical Application in 243 Patients: Erratum
.
What this paper says
An erratum notice correcting an earlier article; the record contains only a pointer to the article being corrected and states no findings.
Overview
This record is an erratum, not new research. It attaches to the Norwegian translation and application study of the FACE-Q rhinoplasty module in 243 patients. The published notice gives only the identifier of the corrected article and does not state what was changed.
Sections of note
- Record type: erratum.
- Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 2020; open access, PMC6908397.
- The notice corrects the article with DOI 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002448.
- That article is the Norwegian linguistic validation and clinical application of the FACE-Q rhinoplasty module in 243 patients.
- The nature of the correction is not stated in this record.
- No clinical data, patient numbers, or results appear.
What it means for a patient
- Nothing clinical follows from this record.
- The original article, not this notice, carries the satisfaction and adverse effect figures.
- Anyone reading the original should check this erratum for what was amended.
Why this paper matters
Errata form part of the published record and are indexed alongside the original article, so they appear in literature searches. This one signals that something in the original was amended. The notice itself gives no detail, so the corrected article must be consulted.
Terms
- Erratum: A published notice correcting an error in an earlier article.
- DOI: A permanent identifier assigned to a published article.
- FACE-Q rhinoplasty module: A validated questionnaire section covering satisfaction with the nose.
- Linguistic validation: Translating an instrument so it measures the same thing in another language.
- Open access: Freely readable without a subscription.
Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-09; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.
Abstract
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002448.].
Abstract as indexed by PubMed; the article is open access (PubMed Central).
Citation
Start here
What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topic, cited line by line to PubMed.
Related papers
Same topic, 2020.
- ASJ Commentary on: Reporting Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic ReviewBaker SB2020PMID 31181135
- ASJ Reporting Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic ReviewHassan Y, Leveille CF, Gallo L et al.2020PMID 31051500Summary
- APS A Comparative Analysis of Patients' Quality of Life, Body Image and Self-confidence Before and After Aesthetic Rhinoplasty SurgeryBorujeni LA, Pourmotabed S, Abdoli Z et al.2020PMID 31832733Summary
- APS Correction to: The Role of Skin Thickness in the Choice of a Rhinoplasty Technique for Thin-Skinned Patients: Analysis of Long-Term Results and Patient SatisfactionBarone M, Cogliandro A, Salzillo R et al.2020PMID 32514639Summary
- APS Invited Discussion on: The Role of Skin Thickness in the Choice of a Rhinoplasty Technique for Thin-Skinned Patients: Analysis of Long-Term Results and Patient SatisfactionPshenisnov KP, Pshenisnov KK2020PMID 32524196
- APS Psychological Analysis of Non-surgical RhinoplastyDi Rosa L, Cerulli G, De Pasquale A2020PMID 31768580Summary
- APS The Role of Skin Thickness in the Choice of a Rhinoplasty Technique for Thin-Skinned Patients: Analysis of Long-Term Results and Patient SatisfactionBarone M, Cogliandro A, Salzillo R et al.2020PMID 32410198Summary
- FPS Patient Satisfaction following Structural versus Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic ReviewLevin M, Ziai H, Roskies M2020PMID 32750725Summary