2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic Review of Breast-Q: A Tool to Evaluate Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          The aim of this systematic review is to update and synthesize new evidence on BREAST-Q questionnaire’s ability to reflect patient-reported outcomes in women who have undergone breast reconstruction surgery (BRS) following mastectomy.

          Methods

          PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Clincaltrial.gov were searched for relevant studies from January 2009 to September 2021. Any interventional or observational studies that used BREAST-Q to assess patient-reported outcomes in the assessment of BRS following mastectomy were included.

          Results

          A total of 42 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Three were randomized controlled trials and 39 were observational studies. Compared with pre-operative scores, there was an improvement in all BREAST-Q outcome domains following BRS including ‘satisfaction with breasts’, “satisfaction with outcome” “psychosocial”, “physical”, and “sexual wellbeing”. Sexual well-being had the lowest BREAST-Q score both pre-and post-operatively (37.8–80.0 and 39.0–78.0, respectively). Autologous BRS reports higher satisfaction and overall wellbeing compared to implant-based BRS. BREAST-Q has a higher and narrow internal consistency of 0.81 to 0.96 compared with other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; EORTC-QLQ, FACT-B, BR-23, BCTOS). The BREAST-Q questionnaire is the only PROM which allows patients to reflect on their care, surgical outcomes, and satisfaction collectively.

          Conclusion

          This review highlights the fact that BREAST-Q can effectively and reliably measure satisfaction and wellbeing of breast cancer patients after BRS. Comparatively, sexual wellbeing shows poorer outcomes following BRS and more longitudinal studies are necessary to understand the basis for these findings. Compared to other PROMs, BREAST-Q is reliable and specific to breast cancer surgery. Overall, BREAST-Q can help clinicians improve their quality of service, understand patient experiences, and may be used as an auditing tool for surgical outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references94

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Risk‐of‐bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk‐of‐bias assessments

            Despite a major increase in the range and number of software offerings now available to help researchers produce evidence syntheses, there is currently no generic tool for producing figures to display and explore the risk-of-bias assessments that routinely take place as part of systematic review. However, tools such as the R programming environment and Shiny (an R package for building interactive web apps) have made it straightforward to produce new tools to help in producing evidence syntheses. We present a new tool, robvis (Risk-Of-Bias VISualization), available as an R package and web app, which facilitates rapid production of publication-quality risk-of-bias assessment figures. We present a timeline of the tool's development and its key functionality.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data.

              There currently does not exist guidance for authors aiming to undertake systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies, such as those reporting prevalence and incidence information. These reviews are particularly useful to measure global disease burden and changes in disease over time. The aim of this article is to provide guidance for conducting these types of reviews.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)
                Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)
                bctt
                Breast Cancer : Targets and Therapy
                Dove
                1179-1314
                16 December 2021
                2021
                : 13
                : 711-724
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Surgery, Bendigo Health , Bendigo, Victoria, 3550, Australia
                [2 ]Department of Surgery, The Alfred Hospital , Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia
                [3 ]Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Melbourne , Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia
                [4 ]Peninsula Clinical School, Central Clinical School at Monash University, The Alfred Centre , Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia
                Author notes
                Correspondence: David J Hunter-Smith Peninsula Clinical School, Central Clinical School at Monash University, The Alfred Centre , 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia Tel +610359763522 Fax +610359763544 Email dhuntersmith@mac.com
                Article
                256393
                10.2147/BCTT.S256393
                8687446
                34938118
                63d87fdd-50fa-4aa4-ac82-c835f3c62df0
                © 2021 Seth et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                : 25 September 2021
                : 29 November 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 6, References: 95, Pages: 14
                Funding
                Funded by: funding agencies;
                This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector. The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
                Categories
                Review

                breast-q,patient-reported outcomes,breast reconstruction surgery,mastectomy

                Comments

                Comment on this article