Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36840864›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2023

Interpreting the BREAST-Q for Breast-Conserving Therapy: Minimal Important Differences and Clinical Reference Values.

Jacqueline J Chu, Audree B Tadros, Lucas Gallo, Babak J Mehrara, Monica Morrow, Andrea L Pusic, Sophocles H Voineskos, Jonas A Nelson

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jacqueline J Chu *Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Audree B Tadros *Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Lucas GalloDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Babak J MehraraPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Monica MorrowBreast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Andrea L PusicDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Sophocles H VoineskosDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jonas A NelsonPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. nelsonj1@mskcc.org.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USMcMaster University · CAPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

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

Breast NeoplasmsMammaplastyFemaleHumansMastectomy, SegmentalPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionQuality of LifeReference Values

Identifiers

PMID36840864
PMCPMC10996067
OpenAlexW4321996926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.