ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Reconceptualizing Patient-reported Outcomes Measures in the Australian Breast Device Registry.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Recognizing and Managing Breast Implant Complications: A Review for Healthcare Providers Who Treat Women Who Underwent Breast Implant-Based Surgery.International journal of women's health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR) is a clinical quality registry that monitors the long-term safety and performance of breast devices, including breast implants, tissue expanders, and matrix/mesh. A 5-question BREAST-Q Implant Surveillance questionnaire was captured with the primary aim of identifying poorly performing devices in women undergoing cosmetic or reconstructive breast procedures from 2017 to 2021. Poor response rates limited the ability to achieve this aim. Higher patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion rates were seen with reconstructive procedures. In light of this, we decided to reconceptualize the ABDR PROM program. The aim of this study was to determine the most acceptable scales for inclusion for reconstructive patients in the ABDR. Methods: A qualitative acceptability study was undertaken to seek the views of women and surgeons regarding appropriate scales from a selection of BREAST-Q instruments for a new PROM program that focused on reconstructive procedures. Data were collected via semistructured interviews, and interview transcripts were reviewed and coded thematically. Results: Eleven women who had undergone breast reconstruction surgery and 5 surgeons were interviewed. The overall preferred BREAST-Q scales were "psychosocial well-being" and "satisfaction with breasts," with recommendations to be initially administered at 6, 12, and 24 months following breast reconstruction surgery. Conclusions: The reconceptualized PROM program addresses outcomes important to women following breast reconstruction surgery. By changing to a more targeted, reliable cohort and broadening the ABDR PROM outcomes, the new program will be better able to inform enhancements in clinical care.
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.