Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38416222›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024

Use of patient-reported outcome measures after breast reconstruction in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

Sri Harshini Malapati, Colby J Hyland, George Liang, Maria O Edelen, Amanda Fazzalari, Manraj N Kaur, Paul A Bain, Gita N Mody, Andrea L Pusic

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Sri Harshini MalapatiBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA, 02115, USA. smalapati@mednet.ucla.edu.ORCID 0009-0001-9182-021X
Colby J HylandBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
George LiangBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Maria O EdelenBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Amanda FazzalariBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Manraj N KaurBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Paul A BainCountway Library, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Gita N ModyDepartment of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Andrea L PusicBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly administered in high-income countries to monitor health-related quality of life of breast cancer patients undergoing breast reconstruction. Although low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face a disproportionate burden of breast cancer, little is known about the use of PROMs in LMICs. This scoping review aims to examine the use of PROMs after post-mastectomy breast reconstruction among patients with breast cancer in LMICs.

methodsMEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched in August 2022 for English-language studies using PROMs after breast reconstruction among patients with breast cancer in LMICs. Study screening and data extraction were completed. Data were analyzed descriptively.

resultsThe search produced 1024 unique studies, 33 of which met inclusion criteria. Most were observational (48.5%) or retrospective (33.3%) studies. Studies were conducted in only 10 LMICs, with 60.5% in China and Brazil and none in low-income countries. Most were conducted in urban settings (84.8%) and outpatient clinics (57.6%), with 63.6% incorporating breast-specific PROMs and 33.3% including breast reconstruction-specific PROMs. Less than half (45.5%) used PROMs explicitly validated for their populations of interest. Only 21.2% reported PROM response rates, ranging from 43.1 to 96.9%. Barriers and facilitators of PROM use were infrequently noted.

conclusionsDespite the importance of PROM collection and use in providing patient-centered care, it continues to be limited in middle-income countries and is not evident in low-income countries after breast reconstruction. Further research is necessary to determine effective methods to address the challenges of PROM use in LMICs.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammaplastyDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansMastectomyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID38416222
PMCPMC10899941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.