Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic review on the Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS) questionnaire in surgical research

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In this review, we examine the use of DAS59 and DAS24 in the scientific literature and in particular how the use of these questionnaires has improved the understanding and practice of plastic and reconstructive surgery.

Methods

A systematic review protocol was developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting for Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analys-Protocol (PRISMA-P) guide. A multi-step search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Premedeline, Ebase, CINAHL, PsychINFO and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies on body image using DAS59 and DAS24.

Results

The literature review yielded 28 articles with DAS59 and 32 articles with DAS24 from peer-reviewed journals met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Since its inception in 2001, the number of publications incorporating the DAS has increased each year with a total of 3.483 patients for DAS59 and 6.012 patients for DAS24. The prospective study design was the most prevalent, being used in 50% of publications (n = 30), 57% for DAS59, 43% for DAS24. The DAS59 was administered in a cross-sectional design in 21% of studies (n = 6) and DAS24 41% (n = 13). The DAS59 was administered in a retrospective design in 18% of studies (n = 5) and DAS24 9% (n = 3). We reported only one case series for DAS59 and 2 for DAS24.

Conclusions

The DAS59 and DAS24 are versatile self-assessment tools that can be used in different medical and surgical environments.

Level of evidence: not ratable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tambone V, Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Persichett IP (2015) How you become who you are: a new concept of beauty for plastic surgery. Arch Plast Surg 42:517–520

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Persichetti P (2013) Role of aesthetic surgery in improving the quality of life: only vanity or a solution to physical and psychorelational problems? Plast Reconstr Surg 132:477e–478e

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Moss TP, Cogliandro A, Pennacchini M, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2013) Appearance distress and dysfunction in the elderly: international contrasts across Italy and the UK using DAS59. Aesthetic Plast Surg 37(6):1187–1193

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Harris DL, Carr AT (2001) The Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS59): a new psychometric scale for the evaluation of patients with disfigurements and aesthetic problems of appearance. Br J Plast Surg 54:216–222

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Keiko N, Kazuhiro H, Nobuaki N et al (2008) Development of the Japanese version of Derriford Appearance Scale DAS59: a QOL index for the people who have problems of appearance. J Jpn Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 28:440–448

    Google Scholar 

  6. Singh VP, Singh RK, Moss TP, Roy DK, Baral DD (2013) Translation and validation of the Nepalese version of Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS59). Modern Plastic Surgery 3:51–56

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Moss T, Chirico A, Mallia L, Lucidi F, Fucito A, D’Aiuto M, Giordano A (2016) Psychosocial outcomes of quadrantectomy versus mastectomy in a southern Italian sample: development and needs of the Italian Derriford Appearance Scale 24. Anticancer Res 36:1519–1526

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cogliandro A, Persichetti P, Ghilardi G, Moss TP, Barone M, Piccinocchi G, Ricci G, Vitali M, Giuliani A, Tambone V (2016) How to assess appearance distress and motivation in plastic surgery candidates: Italian validation of Derriford Appearance Scale 59 (DAS 59). Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 20:3732–3737

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Zare Z, Ranjbar F (2017) Factor structure of the Persian version of general, social, and negative self-consciousness of appearance domains of Derriford Appearance Scale 59: an application in the field of burn injuries. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 13:147–154 eCollection 2017

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Salzillo R, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2018) The role of appearance: definition of appearance-pain (app-pain) and systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures used in literature. Aesthet Plast Surg 42(5):1399–1409

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews 4(1):1

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and 20 explanation. BMJ. 349:g7647–g7647

    Google Scholar 

  13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(4):264–269

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Higgins J, Green S (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1. 0 [Updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration

  15. Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, de Vet HCW (2009) Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 18(8):1115–1123

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Manual for the Derriford Appearance Scale 59 (DAS59) DAS59 © 1996 A. T. Carr & D. L. Harris DAS59 Manual © Musketeer Press

  17. Carr T, Moss T, Harris D (2005) The DAS24: a short form of the Derriford Appearance Scale DAS59 to measure individual responses to living with problems of appearance. Br J Health Psychol 10(Pt 2):285–298

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, Lohr KN, Patrick DL, Perrin E, Stein RE (2002) Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11:193

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cano SJ, Browne JP, Lamping DL et al (2004) The Patient Outcomes of Surgery-Hand/Arm (POS-Hand/Arm): A new patient-based outcome measure. J. Hand Surg. (Br.) 29:477

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Carr AT, Harris DL, James C (2000) The Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS-59): a new scale to measure individual responses to living with problems of appearance. Br J Health Psychol 5:201–215

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sobanko JF, Dai J, Gelfand JM, Sarwer DB, Percec I (2018) Prospective cohort study investigating changes in body image, quality of life, and self-esteem following minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. Dermatol Surg 44(8):1121–1128

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Günel C, Omurlu IK (2015) The effect of rhinoplasty on psychosocial distress level and quality of life. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272(8):1931–1935

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sivakumar B, Haloob N, Puri A, Latif A, Ghani S, Brough V, Molloy J, Clarke A, Denton CP, Butler PE (2010) Systemic sclerosis as a model of chronic rejection in facial composite tissue transplantation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63(10):1669–1676

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Jackson S, Harrad RA, Morris M, Rumsey N (2006) The psychosocial benefits of corrective surgery for adults with strabismus. Br J Ophthalmol 90(7):883–888

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Patnaik U, Nilakantan A, Bajpai R, Addya K (2019) Comprehensive assessment in cosmetic rhinoplasty: the use of the Derriford Appearance Scale for evaluation of patients. Med J Armed Forces India 75(2):184–189

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen G, Ingels K (2018) Patient-reported outcome measurement in upper blepharoplasty: how to measure what the patient sees. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71(9):1346–1351

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen GWJA, Ingels KJAO (2018) Does self-consciousness of appearance influence postoperative satisfaction in rhinoplasty? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71(1):79–84

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Picavet VA, Gabriëls L, Grietens J, Jorissen M, Prokopakis EP, Hellings PW (2013) Preoperative symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder determine postoperative satisfaction and quality of life in aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(4):861–868

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Won TB, Park KT, Moon SJ, Moon IJ, Wee JH, Moss T, Jin HR (2013) The effect of septorhinoplasty on quality of life and nasal function in Asians. Ann Plast Surg 71(1):40–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Picavet VA, Prokopakis EP, Gabriëls L, Jorissen M, Hellings PW (2011) High prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder symptoms in patients seeking rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(2):509–517

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Litner JA, Rotenberg BW, Dennis M, Adamson PA (2008) Impact of cosmetic facial surgery on satisfaction with appearance and quality of life. Arch Facial Plast Surg 10(2):79–83

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hermans BJ, Boeckx WD, De Lorenzi F, van der Hulst RR (2005) Quality of life after breast reduction. Ann Plast Surg 55(3):227–231

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mehrotra D, Howladar D, Bhutia DP (2017) Simultaneous maxillomandibular distraction osteogenesis in hemifacial microsomia: report of 7 cases. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 7(2):147–152

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. de Pochat VD, Alonso N, Ribeiro EB, Figueiredo BS, de Magaldi EN, Cunha MS, Meneses JV (2014) Nasal reconstruction with the paramedian forehead flap using the aesthetic subunits principle. J Craniofac Surg 25(6):2070–2073

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Roberts RM, Mathias JL (2013) Predictors of mental health in adults with congenital craniofacial conditions attending the Australian craniofacial unit. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 50(4):414–423

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Katre C, Johnson IA, Humphris GM, Lowe D, Rogers SN (2008) Assessment of problems with appearance, following surgery for oral and oro-pharyngeal cancer using the University of Washington appearance domain and the Derriford appearance scale. Oral Oncol 44(10):927–934

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Alamoudi U, Taylor B, MacKay C, Rigby MH, Hart R, Trites JRB, Taylor SM (2018) Submental liposuction for the management of lymphedema following head and neck cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 47(1):22

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Albers AE, Reichelt AC, Nolst-Trenité GJ, Menger DJ (2016) Feeling Normal? Long-term follow-up of patients with a cleft lip-palate after Rhinoplasty with the Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS-59). Facial Plast Surg. 32(2):219–224

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Singh VP, Moss TP (2015) Psychological impact of visible differences in patients with congenital craniofacial anomalies. Prog Orthod 16:5

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Roerink SH, Wagenmakers MA, Wessels JF, Sterenborg RB, Smit JW, Hermus AR, Netea-Maier RT (2015) Persistent self-consciousness about facial appearance, measured with the Derriford appearance scale 59, in patients after long-term biochemical remission of acromegaly. Pituitary. 18(3):366–375

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Hontscharuk R, Fialkov JA, Binhammer PA, McMillan CR, Antonyshyn O (2012) Primary orbital fracture repair: development and validation of tools for morphologic and functional analysis. J Craniofac Surg. 23(4):1044–1049

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Tebble NJ, Adams R, Thomas DW, Price P (2006) Anxiety and self-consciousness in patients with facial lacerations one week and six months later. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44(6):520–525

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ricketts S, Regev E, Antonyshyn OM, Kiss A, Fialkov JA (2016) Use of the Derriford Appearance Scale 59 to assess patient-reported outcomes in secondary cleft surgery. Plast Surg (Oakv) 24(1):27–31

    Google Scholar 

  44. Roosenboom J, Hellings PW, Picavet VA, Prokopakis EP, Antonis Y, Schoenaers J, Vander Poorten V, Claes P, Hens G (2014) Secondary cleft rhinoplasty: impact on self-esteem and quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg 134(6):1285–1292

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Pepper JP, Asaria J, Kim JC, Baker SR, Moyer JS (2012) Patient assessment of psychosocial dysfunction following nasal reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 129(2):430–437

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Shepherd L, Reynolds DP, Turner A, O'Boyle CP, Thompson AR (2019) The role of psychological flexibility in appearance anxiety in people who have experienced a visible burn injury. Burns. 45(4):942–949

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Dudek JE, Białaszek W, Ostaszewski P, Smidt T (2018) Depression and appearance-related distress in functioning with lipedema. Psychol Health Med. 23(7):846–853

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Merz EL, Kwakkenbos L, Carrier ME et al (2018) Factor structure and convergent validity of the Derriford Appearance Scale-24 using standard scoring versus treating 'not applicable' responses as missing data: a Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) cohort study. BMJ Open 8(3):e018641

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Gawaziuk JP, Strazar R, Cristall N, Logsetty S (2018) Factors predicting health-related quality of life following necrotizing fasciitis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71(6):857–862

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Cohen LE, Morrison KA, Taylor E, Jin J, Spector JA, Caruana S, Rohde CH (2018) Functional and aesthetic outcomes in free flap reconstruction of intraoral defects with lip-Split versus non-lip-Split incisions. Ann Plast Surg 80(4 Suppl 4):S150–S155

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Ching DL, Mughal M, Papas A, Soldin M (2017) Axillary reconstruction for Hidradenitis Suppurativa with an inner-arm transposition flap creating a brachioplasty effect. Arch Plast Surg 44(3):228–233

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Al-Hadithy N, Welbourn R, Aditya H, Stewart K, Soldin M (2014) A preliminary report on the development of a validated tool for measuring psychosocial outcomes for massive weight loss patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67(11):1523–1531

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Pikturnaite J, Soldin M (2014) Impact of necrotising fasciitis on quality of life: a qualitative analysis. Burns. 40(5):848–851

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Dures E, Rumsey N, Morris M, Gleeson K (2013) A Cross sectional, observational survey to assess levels and predictors of psychological wellbeing in adults with Epidermolysis Bullosa. Health Psychol Res 1(1):e4

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Wilson ER, Wisely JA, Wearden AJ, Dunn KW, Edwards J, Tarrier N (2011) Do illness perceptions and mood predict healing time for burn wounds? A prospective, preliminary study. J Psychosom Res 71(5):364–366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Amin K, Clarke A, Sivakumar B, Puri A, Fox Z, Brough V, Denton CP, Peter EM, Butler P (2011) The psychological impact of facial changes in scleroderma. Psychol Health Med 16(3):304–312

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Brown BC, Moss TP, McGrouther DA, Bayat A (2010) Skin scar preconceptions must be challenged: importance of self-perception in skin scarring. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63(6):1022–1029

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Shalaby MS, Dorris L, Carachi R (2014) The long-term psychosocial outcomes following excision of sacrococcygeal teratoma: a national study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 99(2):F149–F152

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Brake MK, Jain L, Hart RD, Trites JR, Rigby M, Taylor SM (2014) Liposuction for submental lymphedema improves appearance and self-perception in the head and neck cancer patient. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 151(2):221–225

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Smith KB, Wang DL, Plotkin SR, Park ER (2013) Appearance concerns among women with neurofibromatosis: examining sexual/bodily and social self-consciousness. Psychooncology. 22(12):2711–2719

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hansen EL, Clarke A, Austin-Parsons N, Butler PE (2012) The psychological impact of split-thickness skin grafts. J Wound Care 21(10):490–492 494-7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Cross T, Sheard CE, Garrud P, Nikolopoulos TP, O'Donoghue GM (2000) Impact of facial paralysis on patients with acoustic neuroma. Laryngoscope. 110(9):1539–1542

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Clarke SA, Newell R, Thompson A, Harcourt D, Lindenmeyer A (2014) Appearance concerns and psychosocial adjustment following head and neck cancer: a cross-sectional study and nine-month follow-up. Psychol Health Med. 19(5):505–518

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Nozawa K, Shimizu C, Kakimoto M, Mizota Y, Yamamoto S, Takahashi Y, Ito A, Izumi H, Fujiwara Y (2013) Quantitative assessment of appearance changes and related distress in cancer patients. Psycho-Oncology 22:2140–2147

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Moss TP, Lawson V, Liu CY (2015) The Taiwanese Derriford Appearance Scale: the translation and validation of a scale to measure individual responses to living with problems of appearance. Psych J 4(3):138–145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Wickwar S, McBain HB, Ezra DG, Hirani SP, Rose GE, Newman SP (2015) Which factors are associated with quality of life in patients with Graves' orbitopathy presenting for orbital decompression surgery? Eye (Lond) 29(7):951–957

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. McBain HB, Ezra DG, Rose GE, Newman SP (2014) Appearance research collaboration (ARC). The psychosocial impact of living with an ocular prosthesis. Orbit. 33(1):39–44

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Jackson S, Morris M, Gleeson K (2013) The long-term psychosocial impact of corrective surgery for adults with strabismus. Br J Ophthalmol 97(4):419–422

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Wang J, Zhang H, Chen W, Li G (2012) The psychosocial benefits of secondary hydroxyapatite orbital implant insertion and prosthesis wearing for patients with anophthalmia. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 28(5):324–327

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Durnian JM, Owen ME, Marsh IB (2009) The psychosocial aspects of strabismus: correlation between the AS-20 and DAS59 quality-of-life questionnaires. J AAPOS 13(5):477–480

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Tebble NJ, Thomas DW, Price P (2004) Anxiety and self-consciousness in patients with minor facial lacerations. J Adv Nurs 47(4):417–426

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Bessell A, Brough V, Clarke A, Harcourt D, Moss TP, Rumsey N (2012) Evaluation of the effectiveness of face IT, a computer-based psychosocial intervention for disfigurement-related distress. Psychol Health Med. 17(5):565–577

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Hassan J, Grogan S, Clark-Carter D, Richards H, Yates VM (2009) The individual health burden of acne: appearance-related distress in male and female adolescents and adults with back, chest and facial acne. J Health Psychol 14(8):1105–1118

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Rumsey N, Clarke A, White P, Wyn-Williams M, Garlick W (2004) Altered body image: appearance-related concerns of people with visible disfigurement. J Adv Nurs 48(5):443–453

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Coster WJ (2013) Making the best match: selecting outcome measures for clinical trials and outcome studies. Am J Occup Ther 67:162–170

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick R (2002) Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ 324:1417

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Sanders C, Egger M, Donovan J, Tallon D, Frankel S (1998) Reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials: bibliographic study. BMJ 317:1191–1194

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Patrick D, Rock E, O’Neill R et al (2007) Patient reported outcomes to support medical product labelling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health 10:125–137

    Google Scholar 

  79. Cagli B, Cogliandro A, Barone M, Persichetti P (2014) Quality-of-life outcomes between mastectomy alone and breast reconstruction: comparison of patient-reported BREAST-Q and other health-related quality-of-life measures. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:594–595

    Google Scholar 

  80. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A, Snell L, Pusic AL (2010) Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg 26:303–309

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Pusic AL, Chen CM, Cano S, Klassen A, McCarthy C, Collins ED, Cordeiro PG (2007) Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:823–837

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, Rome, Italy

    Annalisa Cogliandro, Mauro Barone, Silvia Ciarrocchi, Rosa Salzillo & Paolo Persichetti

  2. Research group “To be and to appear: Objective indication to Plastic Surgery” of Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Annalisa Cogliandro, Mauro Barone & Paolo Persichetti

  3. Institute of Philosophy of Scientific and Technological Activity, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Mauro Barone & Vittoradolfo Tambone

  4. Department of Psychology, University of the West of England, Bristol, England, UK

    Timothy Moss

  5. Centre for Appearance Research University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

    Timothy Moss

Authors
  1. Annalisa Cogliandro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mauro Barone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Silvia Ciarrocchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rosa Salzillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Timothy Moss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vittoradolfo Tambone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paolo Persichetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mauro Barone.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Annalisa Cogliandro, Mauro Barone, Silvia Ciarrocchi, Rosa Salzillo, Tim Moss, Vittoradolfo Tambone, Paolo Persichetti declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. However, for this type of study, formal consent from a local ethics committee is not required.

Funding statement

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cogliandro, A., Barone, M., Ciarrocchi, S. et al. A systematic review on the Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS) questionnaire in surgical research. Eur J Plast Surg 43, 795–808 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-020-01660-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-020-01660-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation