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
. 2022 Feb:61:91-97.
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.11.008. Epub 2021 Nov 25.

Giving meaning to patient reported outcomes in breast reconstruction after mastectomy - A systematic review of available scores and suggestions for further research

Linn Weick  1 , Fredrik Brorson  1 , Christian Jepsen  1 , Mattias Lidén  1 , Emmelie Widmark Jensen  1 , Emma Hansson  2
Affiliations

Giving meaning to patient reported outcomes in breast reconstruction after mastectomy - A systematic review of available scores and suggestions for further research

Linn Weick et al. Breast. 2022 Feb.

Abstract

Background: There are three patient reported outcome measure instruments (PROMs) that have adequate content validity for breast reconstruction, BREAST-Q, BRECON-31 and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23, and they all have been robustly validated. The aim of this study was to systematically review scores giving meaning to validated PROMs for breast reconstruction after mastectomy and discuss methods to enable interpretation of them.

Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the recommendations of PRISMA. Prospero CRD42021255874. Included articles had to meet criteria defined in a SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type). The included studies were critically appraised using the GRADE approach.

Results: Three articles were finally included in the review: two studies on scores for healthy controls and one on minimally important differences (MIDs), both of BREAST-Q. All of the studies were performed in North America. Only MIDs based on statistical characteristics, and not on what constitutes a relevant change for the patient, exist. The risk of bias was evaluated as very high and moderate, respectively, of inconsistencies as low, of indirectness as high, of imprecisions as low, and of publication bias as probably low.

Conclusions: The overall certainty of evidence for scores giving meaning to PROMs for breast reconstruction is low (GRADE ƟƟОО). More studies are needed to establish relevant healthy control scores and what constitutes a relevant clinical difference for patient-reported outcome measures for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Clinical implications of the findings and suggestions for further research are suggested in the article.

Keywords: Breast reconstruction; PROM; Patient reported outcome; Plastic surgery; Quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers only.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Clinical implications of the findings and suggestions for further research.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Potter S., Holcombe C., Ward J.A., Blazeby J.M., Group B.S. Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1360–1371. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Potter S., Thomson H.J., Greenwood R.J., Hopwood P., Winters Z.E. Health-related quality of life assessment after breast reconstruction. Br J Surg. 2009;96:613–620. - PubMed
    1. Sharma K., Steele K., Birks M., Jones G., Miller G. Patient-reported outcome measures in plastic surgery: an introduction and review of clinical applications. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;83:247–252. - PubMed
    1. Davies C.F., Macefield R., Avery K., Blazeby J.M., Potter S. Patient-reported outcome measures for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction: a systematic review of development and measurement properties. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:386–404. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Guyatt G.H., Osoba D., Wu A.W., Wyrwich K.W., Norman G.R. Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371–383. - PubMed

Publication types