Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31641976›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2019

Establishing the acceptability of a brief patient reported outcome measure and feasibility of implementing it in a breast device registry - a qualitative study.

Sze Ng, Maggie Kirkman, Jane Fisher, Andrea Pusic, Emily Parker, Rodney D Cooter, Elisabeth Elder, Colin Moore, John McNeil, Ingrid Hopper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Sze NgDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Maggie KirkmanDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Jane FisherDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Andrea PusicMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Emily ParkerDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Rodney D CooterDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Elisabeth ElderDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Colin MooreDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
John McNeilDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Ingrid HopperDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. Ingrid.Hopper@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8805-370X

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Department of Health, Australian Government D14-1397683NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo examine the acceptability of a Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) that assesses perceptions and experiences of implants for breast reconstruction or augmentation, and the feasibility of implementing it in the Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR).

methodsThe BREAST-Q Implant Surveillance (BREAST-Q IS) is a 5-question PROM derived from the BREAST-Q questionnaire. It assesses perceptions of breast appearance and sensation, and experiences of pain. Breast implant recipients (recruited via community networks, social media and notices in surgeons' rooms) and surgeons contributing to the ABDR were invited to review the BREAST-Q-IS. Participation was by individual semi-structured interviews by telephone or email, or by completion of a paper questionnaire. Transcripts of audio recordings and emailed text were analysed thematically.

resultsTwenty one breast implant recipients (10 after reconstruction and 11 augmentation), 8 surgeons (five plastic, three breast) and 2 medical professionals performing cosmetic surgeries were interviewed. Six themes were identified: Overall impression, Emotional response to the BREAST-Q IS, Method of follow-up, Suggested improvements, Group variation, and Potential Clinical utility. Overall, breast implant recipients and surgeons found the BREAST-Q IS to be acceptable and unlikely to provoke strong emotional reactions. Email was the preferred mode of contact. Most suggested improvements were to add questions. Surgeons expressed concern that subjective responses to the PROM might not accurately reflect experiences and that the PROM would predict need for revision rather than device failure.

conclusionThis study supports the acceptability and feasibility of BREAST-Q IS as a PROM for recipients of breast implants. Further validation of the Breast-Q IS is required.

Indexed as

AcceptabilityBreast augmentationBreast implantBreast reconstructionFeasibilityOutcomesPatient reported outcome measures

Identifiers

PMID31641976
PMCPMC6805841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.