Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35040096›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2022

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used for Assessing Breast Sensation after Mastectomy: Not Fit for Purpose.

Hansje P Smeele, Rachel C H Dijkstra, Merel L Kimman, René R W J van der Hulst, Stefania M H Tuinder

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Hansje P Smeele *Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4733-7036
Rachel C H Dijkstra *Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Merel L KimmanDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5717-5704
René R W J van der HulstDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Stefania M H TuinderDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. s.tuinder@mumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-9046-3962
University Medical Center · USMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe aims of this review were (i) to evaluate whether patient-reported outcome measures used in clinical studies for assessing sensation after mastectomy and breast reconstruction are suitable for this purpose, and (ii) to explore whether any measures used for assessing sensation after non-oncologic breast surgery are worth modifying for use in post-mastectomy patients.

methodsPRISMA guidelines were followed (PROSPERO number CRD42020178066). We searched six databases for studies of oncologic (i.e., therapeutic, prophylactic, and reconstructive) and non-oncologic breast surgery (e.g., breast reduction) in which sensation was assessed with a patient-reported outcome measure. From the selected studies, we extracted eligible measures, evaluated their fitness for purpose, and summarized the content of sensation-specific items.

resultsOf 6728 articles identified, we selected 135 studies that used 124 eligible patient-reported outcome measures. For 97% of these measures, details regarding development and measurement properties were unavailable. Four (3%) validated measures-the Sensory Disturbances subscale of the Breast Cancer Sequelae Cause Scales, the Discomfort subscale of the Breast Sensation Assessment Scale (BSAS), Didier et al.'s questionnaire for "Assessment of the patients' satisfaction with cosmetic results, physical and emotional impact of mastectomy", and the Breast Specific Pain subscale of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcomes Scale (BCTOS)-each contain at least one item pertaining to breast sensation, but target different concepts of interest. In total, the measures feature 215 sensation-specific items, most of which concern symptom severity (97%) as opposed to impact on daily functioning (3%).

conclusionPatient-reported outcome measures used in clinical studies for assessing sensation after mastectomy and breast reconstruction are unsuitable for this purpose: they are either non-validated or non-specific. We failed to identify any measures for use in non-oncologic breast surgery populations worth modifying. To collect meaningful, patient-relevant data regarding sensation after mastectomy, it is pertinent that future clinical trials adopt psychometrically robust, specific patient-reported outcome measures.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammaplastyFemaleHumansMastectomyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionQuality of LifeSensation

Identifiers

PMID35040096
PMCPMC9197899
OpenAlexW4206121300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.