Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37022647›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2023

Re-examining content validity of the BREAST-Q more than a decade later to determine relevance and comprehensiveness.

Manraj N Kaur, Sabrina Chan, Louise Bordeleau, Toni Zhong, Elena Tsangaris, Andrea L Pusic, Stefan J Cano, Anne F Klassen

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07044583 (SAVE Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07044583 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

SAVE Trial: SAfe Opioid Use Video Education

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of UtahRan2025 to 2027Enrolled68ConditionsBreast Reconstruction, Breast CancerArmsOpioid Educational Video
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: NeoSTEEP.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    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.

Manraj N KaurBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis S, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. mkaur17@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1911-0395
Sabrina ChanMcMaster University, 1280 Main Street W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Louise BordeleauJuravinski Cancer Center, Room 3-17, 699 Concession Street, Hamilton, ON, L8V 5C2, Canada.
Toni ZhongToronto General Hospital, 8N-871, Norman Urquhart Wing, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada.
Elena TsangarisBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis S, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Andrea L PusicBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis S, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Stefan J CanoModus Outcomes, 4th Floor St. James House, St. James Square, Cheltenham, England, GL50 3PR, UK.
Anne F KlassenMcMaster University, 1280 Main Street W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe BREAST-Q is the most used patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in breast cancer surgery. The purposes of this study were to re-examine the content validity of BREAST-Q cancer modules (mastectomy, lumpectomy and reconstruction) and to determine the need for new scales.

methodsInterviews were conducted with women with breast cancer (Stage 0-4, any treatment), and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Deductive (based on original BREAST-Q conceptual framework) and inductive (new codes from the data) content analysis approaches were used to analyze the data. The number of codes that mapped to BREAST-Q were recorded.

resultsDataset included 3948 codes from 58 participants. Most of the breast (n = 659, 96%) and all psychosocial (n = 127, 100%), sexual (n = 179, 100%) and radiation-related (n = 79, 100%) codes mapped to BREAST-Q Satisfaction with Breast, Psychosocial Wellbeing, Sexual Wellbeing and Adverse Effects of Radiation scales, respectively. For the physical wellbeing codes (n = 939) for breast/chest and arm, 34% (n = 321) mapped to the Physical Wellbeing-Chest scale. Most of the abdomen codes (n = 311) mapped to Satisfaction with Abdomen (n = 90, 76%) and Physical Wellbeing-Abdomen (n = 171, 89%) scales. Codes that did not map (n = 697, 30%) covered breast sensation and lymphedema. Concerns related to fatigue, cancer worry, and work impact were most reported and did not map to BREAST-Q.

conclusionThe BREAST-Q, which was developed using extensive patient input more than a decade ago, is still relevant. To ensure the BREAST-Q remains comprehensive, new scales for upper extremity lymphedema, breast sensation, fatigue, cancer worry, and work impact were developed.

Indexed as

Breast Carcinoma In SituBreast NeoplasmsLymphedemaMammaplastyFemaleHumansMastectomyPatient SatisfactionBreast cancerBREAST-QBreast sensationCancer worryComprehensivenessContent validityFatigueLymphedemaPatient-reported outcomePatient-reported outcome measuresQualitativeWork impact

Identifiers

PMID37022647
PMCPMC10079800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.