Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Oct;102(11):1360-71.
doi: 10.1002/bjs.9883. Epub 2015 Jul 15.

Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery

S Potter  1 , C Holcombe  2 , J A Ward  1 , J M Blazeby  1   3 ; BRAVO Steering Group
Collaborators, Affiliations

Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery

S Potter et al. Br J Surg. 2015 Oct.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of the development of a core outcome set for reconstructive breast surgery. *Donor‐site symptoms and donor‐site complications were merged into one item
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Cancer Research UK . Breast Cancer Statistics. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/breast [accessed 24 February 2015].
    1. Matala CM, McIntosh SA, Purushotham AD. Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy for cancer. Br J Surg 2000; 87: 1455–1472. - PubMed
    1. Harcourt D, Rumsey N. Psychological aspects of breast reconstruction: a review. J Adv Nurs 2001; 35: 477–487. - PubMed
    1. Cordeiro PG. Breast reconstruction after surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1590–1601. - PubMed
    1. Thiruchelvam PT, McNeill F, Jallali N, Harris P, Hogben K. Post‐mastectomy breast reconstruction. BMJ 2013; 347: f5903. - PubMed

Publication types