Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29417143›Full record

ArticleJAMA surgery2018

Accuracy of Predictions of Patients With Breast Cancer of Future Well-being After Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

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

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. IDECIDE breast surgery patient decision aid: Development and testing of a quality of life-integrated decision support tool.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.
Michael Patrick PignoneDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin.
Allison M DealLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center Biostatistics Core Facility, 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.
Ruth HuhLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center Biostatistics Core Facility, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Yuen-Jong LiuDepartment of Surgery, University of North Carolina Hospitals, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Peter Anthony UbelDuke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USDuke University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USThe Ohio State University · USThe University of Texas at Austin · USUniversity of North Carolina Hospitals · US

Funding

Virology Research Program (Program 4)P30CA016086 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Deborah F. Tate · 1985 to 2026
$201.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016086
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Making a good decision about breast reconstruction requires predicting how one would feel after the procedure, but people tend to overestimate the impact of events on future well-being. Objective: To assess how well patients predict future well-being after mastectomy, with or without immediate reconstruction, with the following a priori hypotheses: Patients will overestimate the negative impact of mastectomy and positive impact of reconstruction, and prediction accuracy will be associated with decision satisfaction and decision regret. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort survey study was conducted at a single, multidisciplinary academic oncology clinic from July 2012 to February 2014. Adult women undergoing mastectomy for stage 1, 2, or 3 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ, or prophylaxis were invited to participate. Data analysis was conducted from September 2015 to October 2017. Exposures: Mastectomy only or mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. Main Outcomes and Measures: Preoperative measures predicted were 12-month happiness (Cantril Ladder) and quality of life, predicted satisfaction with breasts, sexual attractiveness, breast numbness, and pain (measured with BreastQ single items). Measures at 12 months postoperative added the Decision Regret Scale and Satisfaction With Decisions Scale. Results: Of 214 eligible patients, 182 consecutive patients were approached, and 145 enrolled (80%). Of these 145 patients, 131 returned surveys (72%) and 111 of these remained at 12 months (88%). Fifteen who had delayed reconstruction were excluded from analysis, leaving a final cohort of 96 women; 54 had not had reconstruction and 42 had had reconstruction. The mean (SD) age of the cohort was 53.9 (12.1) years; 73 (76%) were white; 50 (52%) were college graduates; 54 (56%) were privately insured; 69 (72%) had disease at stages 0, 1, or 2; and 31 (32%) received adjuvant radiation. Patients having mastectomy without reconstruction underestimated future well-being in all domains. Differences were significant for quality of life scores (mean predicted, 68 vs mean actual, 74; t50, -2.47; P = .02) and satisfaction with breasts-clothed (mean predicted, 2.4 vs mean actual, 2.8; t49, -2.11; P = .04). Patients undergoing mastectomy with reconstruction overestimated future well-being in all but 1 domain. Differences were significant for satisfaction with breasts-unclothed (mean predicted, 3.1 vs mean actual, 2.6; t41, 2.70; P = .01); sexual attractiveness-clothed (mean predicted, 3.7 vs mean actual, 3.3; t39, 2.29; P = .03); sexual attractiveness-unclothed (mean predicted, 3.3 vs mean actual, 2.3; t40, 5.57; P < .001). Both groups experienced more numbness than predicted (mean predicted, 2.79 and 2.72 for mastectomy only and mastectomy with reconstruction groups, respectively; mean actual, 3.52 and 3.56, respectively; t47, -3.4 and t38, -2.9, respectively; P < .01). Patients who were less happy (β = 6.3; P = .02) or had greater pain (β = 8.7; P < .001) than predicted had greater regret. Conclusions and Relevance: Patients underestimated future well-being after mastectomy and overestimated well-being after reconstruction. Misprediction was associated with regret. Decision support for breast reconstruction should address expectations about well-being.

Indexed as

Health StatusQuality of LifeAdultAgedBody ImageBreast NeoplasmsDecision MakingEmotionsFemaleHappinessHumansHypesthesiaMammaplastyMastectomyMiddle AgedPain

Identifiers

PMID29417143
PMCPMC5875341
OpenAlexW2793197317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.