ArticleJPRAS open2021
Acellular bovine pericardium matrix in immediate breast reconstruction compared with conventional implant-based breast reconstruction.
Article in JPRAS open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Squid Skin Decellularised Dermal Matrix for Enhancing Repair of Acute Cranial Injuries in Rabbit Model.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Methodological Quality of Open Access Compared to Traditional Journal Publications in the Plastic Surgery Literature.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Review
- Trends and issues in clinical research on satisfaction and quality of life after mastectomy and breast reconstruction: a 5-year scoping review.International journal of clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Application of Tilapia Skin Acellular Dermal Matrix to Induce Acute Skin Wound Repair in Rats.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcellular Bovine Pericardium Matrix (ABPM) is a new material in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Few studies have reported on its outcome and complications worldwide and most studies were without a control group. Our aim was to compare its use in IBBR with the other two conventional implant-based reconstruction methods.
methodsA retrospective review of patients undergoing IBBR from January to December 2018 was performed. Patients were assigned to the ABPM-assisted IBBR (group A), latissimus dorsi-assisted IBBR (group B) and two-stage IBBR (group C). Patients' post-operative complications, cost-effectiveness and Quality of Life were compared.
results100 patients with 100 breasts were included in the study. No complications occurred in group C (
conclusionsABPM demonstrated acceptable complication rates, cost-effectiveness and quality of life outcomes when compared to LD-assisted IBBR and two-stage IBBR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.