We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Invited Commentary |

Patient Databases and Clinical Registries in Facial Plastic Surgery Research—Looking at Outcomes Data on a Broader Scale

Sydney C. Butts, MD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Otolaryngology, State University of New York Downstate, Brooklyn
JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2016;18(3):220-221. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2016.0015.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


In this issue of JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, Spataro et al1 discuss several limitations of the current literature on revision septal and rhinoplasty surgery. Although these studies have been informative in many ways, the body of research is, for the most part, retrospective in nature, representing the experience of a single surgeon or institution, with small cohorts and many types of techniques.1 Therefore, the ability to compare them is limited, and the generalizability of these types of studies to another surgeon’s practice is limited also. The study objective by Spataro et al1 was to report surgical revision rates for a large cohort of patients from several regions of the country over an adequate time frame to address these concerns. Armed with this type of data, facial plastic surgeons would be better equipped to counsel patients about the variables associated with higher revision rates. Surgeons would also have better benchmarks to assess their own performance. The evaluation of surgeon performance is being formalized to a greater degree with the implementation of quality measures by government agencies. The current “value-based” environment is structured to promote quality of patient outcomes and link them to reimbursement strategies. Therefore, surgeons have a vested interest in understanding the surgical outcomes of large groups of patients.1

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles