Variations in reporting of clinician-reported outcome measures in third molar surgery: A focused review

Clinician-reported outcome measures (ClinRO measures) play a fundamental role in quality assurance throughout healthcare systems. With commissioners turning ever more frequently to ClinRO data to evaluate and compare individual hospital performance and casemix, and funding decisions increasingly relying on these data, agreed core outcome sets (COS) are essential for the collection of standardised specialty-specific outcomes. Beyond their role in service commissioning, COS enable standardisation of outcomes in clinical studies, allowing comparisons to be drawn between similar trials as well as pooling of data for systematic reviews and metaanalyses. This review explores those ClinRO measures most commonly reported in the third molar literature, highlighting inconsistencies in ClinRO selection, measurement and reporting among researchers. We recognise here a prime opportunity for the specialty to address this lag in COS relative to other surgical specialties. With the Quality Outcomes in Maxillofacial Surgery (QOMS) overseeing the institution of many subspecialty-specific national databases in recent years, OMFS is well placed to develop a series of COS for each subspecialty domain for the benefit of researchers, clinicians and ultimately, patients.