ArticleCancer biology & medicine2021
Comparison of outcomes between immediate implantbased and autologous reconstruction: 15-year, single-center experience in a propensity score-matched Chinese cohort.
Article in Cancer biology & medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of lymph node status on the prognosis of female breast cancer patients who underwent immediate reconstruction after total mastectomy: a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Use of patient-reported outcome measures after breast reconstruction in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- Long-term patient-reported outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer: population-based cohort study.The British journal of surgery · 2023Article
- 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
- Novel nomograms for predicting survival for immediate breast reconstruction patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer-a single-center 15-year experience.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe number of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) procedures has been increasing in China. This study aimed to investigate the oncological safety of IBR, and to compare the survival and surgical outcomes between implant-based and autologous reconstruction.
methodsData from patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer who underwent immediate total breast reconstruction between 2001 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Long-term breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), disease-free survival (DFS), and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were evaluated. Patient satisfaction with the breast was compared between the implant-based and autologous groups. BCSS, DFS, and LRFS were compared between groups after propensity score matching (PSM).
resultsA total of 784 IBR procedures were identified, of which 584 were performed on patients with invasive breast cancer (implant-based,
conclusionsBoth immediate implant-based and autologous reconstruction were reasonable choices with similar long-term oncological outcomes and patient-reported satisfaction among patients with invasive breast cancer in China.
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.