4.1 Review

Prevalence of Body Dysmorphic Disorder Among Rhinoplasty Candidates: A Systematic Review

Journal

ENT-EAR NOSE & THROAT JOURNAL
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/01455613211056543

Keywords

rhinoplasty; body dysmorphic disorder; epidemiology; prevalence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The prevalence of BDD among rhinoplasty candidates is high, indicating the need for adequate management and interventions to reduce it.
Objective Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) represents a bridge between the fields of psychiatry and cosmetic surgery. It is a psychiatric disorder involving altered body image and has been associated with cosmetic surgery. Many studies have investigated BDD following rhinoplasty. However, their findings were inconsistent, which prompted us to conduct this systematic review to obtain strong evidence about the prevalence of BDD among rhinoplasty candidates. Methods We searched the literature using electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and others using keywords relevant to the study outcomes. We also manually examined the references of the included studies and relevant reviews to look for articles that might have been missed during the electronic search. Results Nine articles met the inclusion criteria. We identified 7 other relevant articles; since they had been included in a review conducted in 2016, they were not included in the final list of articles. However, they were included in the discussion, and their findings have been compared with ours. The included articles resulted in a total sample of 712 rhinoplasty candidates. The estimated prevalence rates of BDD in these articles ranged from 22% to 52%, which was considered high by all the authors of the included studies. Conclusion The prevalence of BDD among rhinoplasty candidates is high, and adequate management and interventions are needed to reduce it.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available