rhinoplasty.cc
Menu

Journal archive · 2022

FPS Facial Plastic Surgery · 2022

A Quality Assessment of Online Patient Information Regarding Rhinoplasty

Shamil E, Scenza GD, Ghani SA, Fan KS, Ragulan S, Salem J, Šurda P, D'Souza AR.

What this paper says

Assessing 295 rhinoplasty websites, only 33 percent gave balanced information on risks and benefits, and just 2 percent stated complication rates.

Overview

Demand for online information about rhinoplasty is large, but the quality and content of what is available was unknown. This study assessed the most popular online material using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool, which evaluates content, structure and readability. Search terms were identified using Google AdWords and Trends, and unique links from the first 10 result pages for each term were evaluated.

Sections of note

  • Assessment of 295 eligible websites written in English for general non medical readers.
  • Search terms included nose operation, nose job, nose reshaping, nose tip surgery, rhinoplasty and septorhinoplasty.
  • The median overall quality score was 17.
  • Only 33 percent contained balanced information on risks and benefits.
  • Bleeding risk was mentioned by 29 percent of websites and infection risk by 27 percent.
  • Only 2 percent described complication rates for the procedures.
  • Only 20 percent explained that further surgery may be needed to achieve the desired result.
  • The authors conclude the quality of online rhinoplasty information is poor.

What it means for a patient

  • Two thirds of the pages a patient is likely to find do not present risks and benefits in balance.
  • Almost none give any figure for how often complications occur.
  • Only one page in five mentions that a second operation may be needed, despite revision being common.
  • The study measures the information available, not what patients actually read or believe.

Why this paper matters

Patients research rhinoplasty online before consultation, and expectations formed there shape satisfaction afterward. This study quantifies how incomplete that material is, particularly on risk and the likelihood of revision. Whether better online information changes expectations or outcomes is unaddressed.

Terms

  • EQIP tool: the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients instrument, which scores patient material on content and clarity.
  • Readability: how easily a general reader can understand written material.
  • Complication rate: how often an unwanted outcome occurs, expressed as a proportion.
  • Informed decision: a choice made with adequate understanding of risks and alternatives.
  • Google AdWords and Trends: tools showing what terms people search for and how often.

Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-09; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.

From the abstract

“There is a large demand for online patient information for patients considering rhinoplasty. While there are many resources available, the quality and content of the information provided are unknown. This study aimed to assess the quality of the most popular information available online, using the "Ensuring Quality…”

Excerpt; the full abstract is on PubMed.

Citation

PubMed
Journal
Facial Plastic Surgery
Year
2022
Authors
8
Type
Journal Article
Access
Subscription
On this site
Summary and abstract

Start here

This paper sits outside the 16 topic groups; the archive holds every paper by journal and year.

Related papers

Same journal, 2022.

  1. FPS
    2022PMID 34500488Summary
  2. FPS
    2022PMID 34051703Summary
  3. FPS
    2022PMID 35158388Summary
  4. FPS
    2022PMID 33990128Summary
  5. FPS
    Cartilage Chips in Rhinoplasty
    Apaydin F, Fernández-Pellón Garcia RF, Sahin FF et al.
    2022PMID 35144286Summary
  6. FPS
    2022PMID 35130565Summary
  7. FPS
    2022PMID 34428809
  8. FPS
    Grafts in Endonasal Rhinoplasty
    Lee DD, Katrib Z, Williams EF
    2022PMID 34024040Summary