Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38849880›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2024

Does the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) in women undergoing pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction increase operative success versus non-use of ADM in the same setting? A systematic review protocol.

H Cook, D Zargaran, S P Glynou, S Hamilton, A Mosahebi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

H CookPlastic Surgery Department, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK. hannah.cook31@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0003-3479-0584
D ZargaranPlastic Surgery Department, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK.
S P GlynouImperial College London School of Medicine, London, UK. sevasti.glynou23@imperial.ac.uk.
S HamiltonPlastic Surgery Department, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK.
A MosahebiPlastic Surgery Department, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in the UK. Following mastectomy, reconstruction is now integral to the surgical management of breast cancer, of which implant-based reconstruction (IBBR) is the most common type. IBBR initially evolved from pre-pectoral to post-pectoral due to complications, but with developments in oncoplastic techniques and new implant technology, interest in pre-pectoral IBBR has increased. Many surgeons use acellular dermal matrices (ADM); however, there is little evidence in literature as to whether this improves surgical outcomes in terms of complications, failure and patient satisfaction. This review aims to assess the available evidence as to whether there is a difference in surgical outcomes for breast reconstructions using ADM versus non-use of ADM.

methodsA database search will be performed using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Clinicaltrials.org. The search timeframe will be 10 years. Studies will be screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria and data extracted into a standardised spreadsheet. Risk of bias will be assessed. Screening, extraction and risk-of-bias assessments will be performed independently by two reviewers and discrepancies discussed and rectified. Data analysis and meta-analysis will be performed using Microsoft Excel and R software. Forest plots will be used for two-arm studies to calculate heterogeneity and p-value for overall effect. DISCUSSION: With the renaissance of pre-pectoral IBBR, it is important that surgeons have adequate evidence available to assist operative decision-making. Assessing evidence in literature is important to help surgeons determine whether using ADM for IBBR is beneficial compared to non-use of ADM. This has potential impacts for patient complications, satisfaction and cost to healthcare trusts. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023389072.

Indexed as

Acellular DermisBreast NeoplasmsMammaplastySystematic Reviews as TopicBreast ImplantationBreast ImplantsFemaleHumansMastectomyPatient SatisfactionAcellular dermal matrixBreast cancerComplicationsImplant-based breast reconstructionImplant failurePatient satisfactionPre-pectoral breast reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID38849880
PMCPMC11157835

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.