Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37122510›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of clinical cases2023

Breast reconstruction: Review of current autologous and implant-based techniques and long-term oncologic outcome.

Mahdi Malekpour, Fatemeh Malekpour, Howard Tz-Ho Wang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of clinical cases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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.

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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. [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
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

3 authors.

Mahdi MalekpourDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78229, United States. ma_malekpour@yahoo.com.
Fatemeh MalekpourDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78229, United States.
Howard Tz-Ho WangDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78229, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implant-based reconstruction is the most common method of breast reconstruction. Autologous breast reconstruction is an indispensable option for breast reconstruction demanding keen microsurgical skills and robust anatomical understanding. The reconstructive choice is made by the patient after a discussion with the plastic surgeon covering all the available options. Advantages and disadvantages of each technique along with long-term oncologic outcome are reviewed.

Indexed as

Autologous ReconstructionBreast ImplantBreast NeoplasmsBreast ReconstructionMammaplastyOncologic Outcome

Identifiers

PMID37122510
PMCPMC10131028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.