Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28467530›Full record

Trial reportJAMA surgery2017

Quality of Patient Decisions About Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy.

Clara Nan-Hi Lee, Allison M Deal, Ruth Huh, Peter Anthony Ubel, Yuen-Jong Liu, Lillian Blizard, Caprice Hunt, Michael Patrick Pignone

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
20.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Development of a patient decision aid (PDA)for patients undergoing breast reconstructive surgery: towards shared decision-making.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Development of a patient decision aid for patients with breast cancer who consider immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Clara Nan-Hi LeeDepartment of Plastic Surgery, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Allison M DealLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center Biostatistics Core Facility, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
Ruth HuhLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center Biostatistics Core Facility, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
Peter Anthony UbelDuke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Yuen-Jong LiuDepartment of Surgery, University of North Carolina Hospitals, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
Lillian BlizardGastrointestinal Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Caprice HuntDepartment of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
Michael Patrick PignoneDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin.
Duke University · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USThe Ohio State University · USUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of North Carolina Hospitals · US

Funding

Tissue Procurement & PathologyP50CA058223 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI CHARLES M PEROU · 1992 to 2026
$59.3M
Biostatistics for Research in Genomics and CancerT32CA106209 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI JOSEPH G IBRAHIM, Naim Ur Rashid · 2004 to 2026
$4.8M
Patient Decision Making about Breast Reconstruction after MastectomyK07CA154850 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI LEE, CLARA NAN-HI · 2011 to 2015
$859k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA154850NCI NIH HHS P50 CA058223NCI NIH HHS T32 CA106209
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceBreast reconstruction has the potential to improve a person's body image and quality of life but has important risks. Variations in who undergoes breast reconstruction have led to questions about the quality of patient decisions.

objectiveTo assess the quality of patient decisions about breast reconstruction. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsA prospective, cross-sectional survey study was conducted from June 27, 2012, to February 28, 2014, at a single, academic, multidisciplinary oncology clinic among women planning to undergo mastectomy for stage I to III invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ, or prophylaxis. EXPOSURES: Mastectomy only and mastectomy with reconstruction. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Knowledge, as ascertained using the Decision Quality Instrument; preference concordance, based on rating and ranking of key attributes; and decision quality, defined as having knowledge of 50% or more and preference concordance.

resultsDuring the 20-month period, 214 patients were eligible, 182 were approached, and 32 missed. We enrolled 145 patients (79.7% enrollment rate), and received surveys from 131 patients (72.0% participation rate). Five participants became ineligible. The final study population was 126 patients. Among the 126 women in the study (mean [SD] age, 53.2 [12.1] years), the mean (SD) knowledge score was 58.5% (16.2%) and did not differ by treatment group (mastectomy only, 55.2% [15.0%]; mastectomy with reconstruction, 60.5% [16.5%]). A total of 82 of 123 participants (66.7%) had a calculated treatment preference of mastectomy only; 39 of these women (47.6%) underwent mastectomy only. A total of 41 participants (32.5%) had a calculated treatment preference of mastectomy with reconstruction; 36 of these women (87.8%) underwent mastectomy with reconstruction. Overall, 52 of 120 participants (43.3%) made a high-quality decision. In multivariable analysis, white race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 2.72; 95% CI, 1.00-7.38; P = .05), having private insurance (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.35-1.93; P < .001), having a high school education or less (vs some college) (OR, 4.84; 95% CI, 1.22-19.21; P = .02), having a college degree (vs some college) (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.53-2.49; P < .001), and not having a malignant neoplasm (eg, BRCA carriers) (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.25-7.85; P = .01) were independently associated with making a high-quality decision. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A minority of patients undergoing mastectomy in a single academic center made a high-quality decision about reconstruction. Shared decision making is needed to support decisions about breast reconstruction.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCarcinoma, LobularCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMammaplastyMastectomyMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceProspective StudiesQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID28467530
PMCPMC5559314
OpenAlexW2610518941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.