Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35291333›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022

Implant-based versus Autologous Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Justin M Broyles, Ethan M Balk, Gaelen P Adam, Wangnan Cao, Monika Reddy Bhuma, Shivani Mehta, Laura S Dominici, Andrea L Pusic, Ian J Saldanha

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07092475 (The Impact of Intraoperative Methadone on Postoperative Opioid Use), which is not on this map. Cited by 50 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT07092475 phase3withdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

The Impact of Intraoperative Methadone on Postoperative Opioid Use

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of UtahRan2025 to 2025Enrolled0ConditionsBreast Cancer, Opioid UseArmsMethadon
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [Advances in application of tissue expansion technology in breast reconstruction].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 3D bioprinting innovations: a new frontier in breast cancer research.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025
    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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Justin M BroylesDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Ethan M BalkCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.
Gaelen P AdamCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.
Wangnan CaoCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.
Monika Reddy BhumaCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.
Shivani MehtaCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.
Laura S DominiciDepartment of Surgery, Division of Breast Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Andrea L PusicDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Ian J SaldanhaCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.
Department of Health Services · NPHarvard University · USBrown University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy, the comparative benefits and harms of implant-based reconstruction (IBR) and autologous reconstruction (AR) are not well known. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of IBR versus AR after mastectomy for breast cancer. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies from inception to March 23, 2021. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and strength of evidence (SoE) of our findings using standard methods. Results: We screened 15,936 citations and included 40 studies (two randomized controlled trials and 38 adjusted nonrandomized comparative studies). Compared with patients who undergo IBR, those who undergo AR experience clinically significant better sexual well-being [summary adjusted mean difference (adjMD) 5.8, 95% CI 3.4-8.2; three studies] and satisfaction with breasts (summary adjMD 8.1, 95% CI 6.1-10.1; three studies) (moderate SoE for both outcomes). AR was associated with a greater risk of venous thromboembolism (moderate SoE), but IBR was associated with a greater risk of reconstructive failure (moderate SoE) and seroma (low SoE) in long-term follow-up (1.5-4 years). Other outcomes were comparable between groups, or the evidence was insufficient to merit conclusions. Conclusions: Most evidence regarding IBR versus AR is of low or moderate SoE. AR is probably associated with better sexual well-being and satisfaction with breasts and lower risks of seroma and long-term reconstructive failure but a higher risk of thromboembolic events. New high-quality research is needed to address the important research gaps.

Identifiers

PMID35291333
PMCPMC8916208
OpenAlexW4220864577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.