Study Design, Reconstructive Modalities, and Patient-Reported Outcome Documentation in a Curated Corpus of Facial...

Background/Objectives: This exploratory meta-research study evaluated study design, reconstructive modalities, and outcome documentation within a non-systematically assembled corpus of facial basal cell carcinoma (BCC) reconstruction studies. The corpus was curated for a parent project, coding relied on narrative matrix fields, and no duplicate full-text extraction was available; frequencies should therefore be interpreted as minimum documentation estimates within this corpus. Methods: We analyzed a frozen matrix of 72 clinical studies with final issue years from 2015 through 2026 (analytic cutoff, 31 July 2026). Prespecified coding distinguished BCC-only from mixed-histology studies and separated any patient-reported endpoint, validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), nonvalidated satisfaction assessments, observer-rated measures, and mixed patient/observer instruments. Associations with prospective design were exploratory. Results: Fifty-nine studies (81.9%) were retrospective, seven (9.7%) comparative, and three (4.2%) multicenter; forty (55.6%) were coded BCC-only. Local or locoregional flaps appeared in 48 matrix records (66.7%). Aesthetic outcomes were documented in 47 (65.3%), complications in 45 (62.5%), function in 27 (37.5%), and any patient-reported endpoint in 9 (12.5%). Four records (5.6%) documented a validated PROM; five (6.9%) named any standardized instrument, including one observer-only VSS assessment. Prospective studies more often documented patient-reported endpoints (4/9 vs. 5/63; OR 9.28, 95% CI 1.87-46.01; p = 0.011) and validated PROMs (3/9 vs. 1/63; OR 31.00, 95% CI 2.77-346.32; p = 0.005), but event counts were sparse and estimates were unadjusted. No matrix record documented all five prespecified outcome domains. Conclusions: Within this curated corpus, retrospective and noncomparative designs predominated and validated patient-centered measurement was uncommon. These findings are hypothesis-generating, do not estimate comparative effectiveness, and should not be generalized to the complete facial BCC reconstruction literature. A reproducible systematic review with duplicate full-text extraction remains necessary.