SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
Bibliometric analysis of quality of life in implant-based breast reconstruction.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends in Facial Reanimation Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Kinesio Taping for Lymphedema in the Post-Mastectomy Patient: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR), following mastectomy, significantly impacts patients' quality of life (QoL), necessitating accurate measurement through psychometrically robust patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) tools. This bibliometric analysis aims to discern trends, identify gaps, and evaluate the use of such tools in the IBR literature. Methods: The 100 most cited publications regarding QoL in implant-based reconstruction were identified on Web of Science, across all available journal years (from 1977 to 2024) on 10 March 2024. Study details, including the citation count, main content focus, outcome measures, and usage of psychological questionnaires, were extracted and tabulated from each publication. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels of evidence (LOE) of each study were assessed. Results: The 100 most cited publications on QoL in implant-based reconstruction were identified, encompassing 64,192 patients and 28,114 reconstructed breasts. Citations per publication ranged from 62 to 457 (mean, 124.95 ± 73.05), with the highest-cited study being authored by Al-Ghazal (n = 457). The vast majority of publications were LOE II (n = 52), representative of prospective cohort studies, systematic reviews of non-randomised studies, and systematic review and meta-analysis. The number of publications for LOE V, IV, III, and I was 0, 7, 41, and 0, respectively. The main content focus was "quality of life" in 83 publications, with significant utilisation of the BREAST-Q questionnaire. A total of 80 publications used validated questionnaires with psychometric development. Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates that the research methodologies within IBR mostly consist of moderate-quality publications; however, notably, there was a lack of LOE I studies, underscoring a gap in high-quality research within the field. Moreover, only 62/100 used validated PROM tools. Future IBR research studies should be focussed on most robust methodologies, incorporating validated PROM tools, to optimise shared-decision making and informed consent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.