Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery
- PMID: 26179938
- PMCID: PMC5034747
- DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9883
Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery
Abstract
Background: Appropriate outcome selection is essential if research is to guide decision-making and inform policy. Systematic reviews of the clinical, cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes of reconstructive breast surgery, however, have demonstrated marked heterogeneity, and results from individual studies cannot be compared or combined. Use of a core outcome set may improve the situation. The BRAVO study developed a core outcome set for reconstructive breast surgery.
Methods: A long list of outcomes identified from systematic reviews and stakeholder interviews was used to inform a questionnaire survey. Key stakeholders defined as individuals involved in decision-making for reconstructive breast surgery, including patients, breast and plastic surgeons, specialist nurses and psychologists, were sampled purposively and sent the questionnaire (round 1). This asked them to rate the importance of each outcome on a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (extremely important). The proportion of respondents rating each item as very important (score 7-9) was calculated. This was fed back to participants in a second questionnaire (round 2). Respondents were asked to reprioritize outcomes based on the feedback received. Items considered very important after round 2 were discussed at consensus meetings, where the core outcome set was agreed.
Results: A total of 148 items were combined into 34 domains within six categories. Some 303 participants (51·4 per cent) (215 (49·5 per cent) of 434 patients; 88 (56·4 per cent) of 156 professionals) completed and returned the round 1 questionnaire, and 259 (85·5 per cent) reprioritized outcomes in round 2. Fifteen items were excluded based on questionnaire scores and 19 were carried forward to the consensus meetings, where a core outcome set containing 11 key outcomes was agreed.
Conclusion: The BRAVO study has used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for reconstructive breast surgery. Widespread adoption by the reconstructive community will improve the quality of outcome assessment in effectiveness studies. Future work will evaluate how these key outcomes should best be measured.
© 2015 The Authors. BJS published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Three nested randomized controlled trials of peer-only or multiple stakeholder group feedback within Delphi surveys during core outcome and information set development.Trials. 2016 Aug 17;17(1):409. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1479-x. Trials. 2016. PMID: 27534622 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Development of a Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials in Non-infectious Uveitis of the Posterior Segment.Ophthalmology. 2021 Aug;128(8):1209-1221. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.01.022. Epub 2021 Jan 28. Ophthalmology. 2021. PMID: 33515595
-
Trial outcomes and information for clinical decision-making: a comparative study of opinions of health professionals.Trials. 2016 Jul 25;17(1):344. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1492-0. Trials. 2016. PMID: 27456848 Free PMC article.
-
Core Outcomes for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Consensus Study.PLoS Med. 2016 Aug 9;13(8):e1002071. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002071. eCollection 2016 Aug. PLoS Med. 2016. PMID: 27505051 Free PMC article.
-
Core outcome set for studies investigating management of selective fetal growth restriction in twins.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;55(5):652-660. doi: 10.1002/uog.20388. Epub 2020 Mar 29. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020. PMID: 31273879
Cited by
-
Core outcome sets in cancer and their approaches to identifying and selecting patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review.J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020 Sep 15;4(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s41687-020-00244-3. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020. PMID: 32930891 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Development of a core outcome set for medication review in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: a study protocol.Clin Interv Aging. 2017 Aug 30;12:1379-1389. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S135481. eCollection 2017. Clin Interv Aging. 2017. PMID: 28919724 Free PMC article.
-
Patient Perspectives of "Failure" in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Literature: Points de vue des patients sur les «échecs» de la reconstruction mammaire: Revue systématique des publications sur l'aspect qualitatif.Plast Surg (Oakv). 2025 Jan 15:22925503241311255. doi: 10.1177/22925503241311255. Online ahead of print. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2025. PMID: 39831128 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Three nested randomized controlled trials of peer-only or multiple stakeholder group feedback within Delphi surveys during core outcome and information set development.Trials. 2016 Aug 17;17(1):409. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1479-x. Trials. 2016. PMID: 27534622 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Core outcome set for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children and young people.Br J Surg. 2020 Jul;107(8):1013-1022. doi: 10.1002/bjs.11508. Epub 2020 Mar 17. Br J Surg. 2020. PMID: 32181505 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Cancer Research UK . Breast Cancer Statistics. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/breast [accessed 24 February 2015].
-
- Matala CM, McIntosh SA, Purushotham AD. Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy for cancer. Br J Surg 2000; 87: 1455–1472. - PubMed
-
- Harcourt D, Rumsey N. Psychological aspects of breast reconstruction: a review. J Adv Nurs 2001; 35: 477–487. - PubMed
-
- Cordeiro PG. Breast reconstruction after surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1590–1601. - PubMed
-
- Thiruchelvam PT, McNeill F, Jallali N, Harris P, Hogben K. Post‐mastectomy breast reconstruction. BMJ 2013; 347: f5903. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical