ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2023
Interpreting the BREAST-Q for Breast-Conserving Therapy: Minimal Important Differences and Clinical Reference Values.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Access to results of patient reported outcome surveys did not improve longitudinal patient reported outcomes in breast cancer patients in a randomized controlled trial.American journal of surgery · 2025Trial
- Robotic versus endoscopic breast-conserving surgery: a comparative analysis of clinical outcomes and aesthetic outcomes in breast cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Trends in Patient-Reported Outcomes After Breast-Conserving Surgery and Partial-Breast Versus Whole-Breast Irradiation.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- The Impact of Psychiatric Diagnosis on Patient Reported Outcomes in Breast-Conserving Surgery Patients.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Quality of Life after Alloplastic versus Autologous Breast Reconstruction: The Influence of Patient Characteristics on Outcomes.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Breast-Conserving Therapy Preserves Sexual Well-Being More than Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Trends, Factors, and Interventions.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- Improving the Impact of BODY-Q Scores Through Minimal Important Differences in Body Contouring Surgery: An International Prospective Cohort Study.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2024Article
- Breast-Conserving Therapy Versus Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes 10 Years After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Early-Stage Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- BREAST-Q REACT: Qualitative Assessment of the Design, Functionality, and Clinical Utility of a New Score Interpretation Tool.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe BREAST-Q is an important tool for evaluating patient satisfaction and quality of life in breast-conserving therapy (BCT) patients, but its clinical utility is limited by the lack of guidance on score interpretation. This study determines reference values and the minimal important difference (MID) for the BREAST-Q BCT module.
methodsA retrospective review of BCT patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from January 2011 to December 2021 was performed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize median BREAST-Q scores. Distribution-based analyses estimated MIDs based on 0.2 standard deviation of baseline BREAST-Q scores and 0.2 standardized response mean of the difference between baseline and 1-year postoperative BREAST-Q scores. MIDs for different clinical groupings based on body mass index, radiation, and reexcision also were estimated.
resultsOverall, 8060 patients were included for determining reference values, and 5673 patients were included for estimating MIDs. Median BREAST-Q scores trended upwards and stabilized by 2 years after surgery for all domains except Physical Well-Being of the Chest, which decreased and stabilized by 2 years. A score interpretation tool, the Real-Time Engagement and Communication Tool, was created based on 25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile scores trajectories. All MID estimates ranged from 3 to 5 points; 4 points was determined to be appropriate for use in clinical practice and research.
conclusionsReference values and MIDs are crucial to BREAST-Q score interpretation, which can lead to improved clinical evaluation and decision making and improved research methodology. Future research should validate this study's findings in different patient cohorts.
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.