Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32656048›Full record

ArticleCureus2020

Patient-Guided Breast Reconstruction Education.

Ivo A Pestana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author.

Ivo A PestanaPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Breast reconstructive surgeons must discuss large amounts of information in an expedient manner to a growing group of women. Our aim is to identify the breast reconstruction resources women prefer and how they desire information to be conveyed in order to develop patient-guided reconstruction education. Methods A preoperative and postoperative breast reconstruction survey was given to women planning to undergo breast reconstruction or who have already undergone reconstruction. The surveys asked women to rank educational resources utilized. Questions on the timing of information gathering, desired educational content, and wish to speak with other breast reconstruction women were included. Results One hundred and fifty consecutive women were enrolled in the study, 50 in the preoperative group and 100 in the postoperative group. Preoperatively, women wish to utilize their surgeon more than any other resource, and the postoperative survey identified that patients utilize their surgeon even more than expected (p < 0.05). Internet and pamphlets were utilized second and third most frequently. Women desired an interactive compact disc significantly more than this resource is currently being utilized (p < 0.05). There was a strong desire to speak to women who had undergone the process. Sixty-six per cent of women indicated they would attend two or more meetings to learn about breast reconstruction. Conclusion The reconstructive surgeon remains the most important educational resource for their patients. Providing consultation over more than one meeting, adding uncommonly discussed content (specifics on postoperative care, body image changes and expectations) to the consultation, and connecting reconstruction patients may improve preoperative consultations and satisfaction with the process of breast reconstruction.

Indexed as

breast reconstructioneducational resourcespatient education

Identifiers

PMID32656048
PMCPMC7348209

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.