Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39019639›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Gothenburg Breast reconstruction (GoBreast) II protocol: a Swedish partially randomised patient preference, superiority trial comparing autologous and implant-based breast reconstruction.

Emma Hansson, Jonas Löfstrand, Camilla Larsson, Alexandra Uusimaki, Karolina Svensson, Anna Ekman, Mikael Svensson, Anna Paganini

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06195865 (Autologous vs. Implant-based Breast Reconstruction), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT06195865 narecruitingnot on this map

Autologous vs. Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: a Partially Randomised Patient Preference, Superiority Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorVastra Gotaland RegionRan2024 to 2031Enrolled250ConditionsBreast CancerArmsDIEP-flap, Implant
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Emma HanssonDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden emma.hansson.2@gu.se.ORCID 0000-0002-3218-0881
Jonas LöfstrandDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Camilla LarssonJohanna, Regional branch of the Swedish Breast Cancer Association, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Alexandra UusimakiJohanna, Regional branch of the Swedish Breast Cancer Association, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Karolina SvenssonJohanna, Regional branch of the Swedish Breast Cancer Association, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Anna EkmanDepartment of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Mikael SvenssonDepartment of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Anna PaganiniDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlthough breast reconstruction is an integral part of breast cancer treatment, there is little high-quality evidence to indicate which method is the most effective. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are generally thought to provide the most solid scientific evidence, but there are significant barriers to conducting RCTs in breast reconstruction, making both recruitment and achieving unbiased and generalisable results a challenge. The objective of this study is to compare implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction in non-irradiated patients. Moreover, the study aims to improve the evidence for trial decision-making in breast reconstruction. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study design partially randomised patient preference trial might be a way to overcome the aforementioned challenges. In the present study, patients who consent to randomisation will be randomised to implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction, whereas patients with strong preferences will be able to choose the method. The study is designed as a superiority trial based on the patient-reported questionnaire BREAST-Q and 124 participants will be randomised. In the preference cohort, patients will be included until 62 participants have selected the least popular alternative. Follow-up will be 60 months. Embedded qualitative studies and within-trial economic evaluation will be performed. The primary outcome is patient-reported breast-specific quality of life/satisfaction, and the secondary outcomes are complications, factors affecting satisfaction and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (2023-04754-01). Results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at peer-reviewed scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06195865.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammaplastyPatient PreferenceAdultBreast ImplantationBreast ImplantsEquivalence Trials as TopicFemaleHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSwedenTransplantation, AutologousBreast surgeryPLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERYRandomized Controlled Trial

Identifiers

PMID39019639
PMCPMC11256070

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.