ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Decision-making Tools for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Scoping Review.
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.
- Engagement-quality mismatch in robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty short videos on TikTok and Bilibili.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast reconstruction is an essential consideration for patients with breast cancer undergoing a mastectomy. Patients commonly report inadequate education as an important cause of dissatisfaction with breast reconstructive care. Information sources for breast reconstruction vary in quality, accuracy, and validity. We sought to determine what academic and nonacademic resources exist supporting decision-making for patients undergoing breast reconstruction. Methods: A search was conducted of both academic literature and nonacademic social media sources. Three academic databases and 5 social media platforms were searched using keywords. Three independent reviewers performed the selection and data extraction of sources that met the inclusion criteria. Results: A total of 1172 academic articles and 1419 nonacademic records were screened, with 14 and 9 included for final review, respectively. Of the 5 nonacademic mediums searched, none were included from TikTok and Instagram. One decision-making tool (DMT) was included from Twitter, 4 from YouTube, and 4 from Google. Overall, the quality of available DMTs was very good. The one included academic DMT had a mean DISCERN score of 5, whereas the 4 DMTs from Google and Twitter had a median DISCERN score of 4. YouTube videos were ranked using the modified DISCERN tool with a median score of 5. Conclusions: Accessibility was found to be a significant barrier for patients in academic and nonacademic platforms with significant knowledge required to effectively search these platforms for resources. Efforts must be made to improve accessibility and awareness of these DMTs, as such tools are essential in shared decision-making.
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.