ReviewSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2023
Decision-making experiences of breast cancer patients related to contralateral prophylactic mastectomy-a systematic meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.
Review in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Behaviour, barriers and facilitators of shared decision making in breast cancer surgical treatment: A qualitative systematic review using a 'Best Fit' framework approach.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Risk-reducing surgery, risk-reducing medication, and surveillance in youngTranslational cancer research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCurrently, the choice of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for breast cancer patients is variable and controversial. Breast cancer patients must make complex and rapid decisions based on the benefits and risks of CPM. Although there are many qualitative studies on the decision-making experiences of breast cancer patients, there is a lack of synthesis of these qualitative studies. Our study goals were to conduct a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on the decision-making experiences, real-life experiences, psychological feelings and needs of breast cancer patients in CPM decision-making, with the aim of providing information to support the development of CPM practice decisions.
methodsUsing a meta-ethnographic approach, qualitative research studies were analysed and synthesised using the method of "reciprocal translational analysis", and themes related to the decision-making experiences of breast cancer patients with respect to CPM were identified.
resultsFive hundred ninety-three documents were retrieved. This meta-synthesis ultimately collected 8 studies. Four themes were identified: (1) decision motivations for survival and body intention; (2) negative and vacillating decision emotions; (3) diverse but weak decision support; (4) short-term satisfaction but long-term unknown and differentiated decision effects.
conclusionsWe found that although patients had different feelings about the effects of CPM in detail, most patients were satisfied with the short-term effects of CPM, but the long-term effects of CPM were still unknown. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) in May 2022 (Registration number: CRD42022334260).
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.