Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31632208›Full record

ReviewSeminars in plastic surgery2019

Implant Reconstruction in Nipple Sparing Mastectomy.

Carrie K Chu, Matthew J Davis, Amjed Abu-Ghname, Sebastian J Winocour, Albert Losken, Grant W Carlson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in plastic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Carrie K ChuDepartment of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Matthew J DavisDivision of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Amjed Abu-GhnameDivision of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Sebastian J WinocourDivision of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Albert LoskenDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Grant W CarlsonDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nipple sparing mastectomy has been popularized in the modern era of breast cancer treatment due to its touted advantages with regard to resultant body image and reconstructive outcome. Implant-based techniques remain the most prevalent means of breast reconstruction. Special considerations regarding patient selection and technique are reviewed for implant reconstruction in the setting of mastectomy with nipple preservation. Applications for prepectoral and direct-to-implant reconstruction are discussed and published outcomes are summarized.

Indexed as

breast cancerbreast reconstructionimplantsnipple sparing mastectomy

Identifiers

PMID31632208
PMCPMC6797495

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.