SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Comparative outcomes of human acellular dermal matrices in breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis framework.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. 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.
- Breast Implants: Biomaterials, Surfaces, Biocompatibility-A Biomedical Engineering Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Safety and optimal timing of staged nipple-sparing mastectomy following nipple repositioning in ptotic breasts: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 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
backgroundAcellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have become popularly used in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) due to their potential to decrease the risk of implant complications such as capsular contracture and malposition. AlloDerm and DermACELL are two of the most commonly used human ADMs, each processed differently to enhance sterility and biocompatibility. Despite their widespread use, the comparative effectiveness and safety of these ADMs remain debatable among plastic surgeons, with conflicting evidence in the literature regarding their complication profiles. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with AlloDerm versus DermACELL in breast reconstruction.
methodsThis review will follow the methodological guidance of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The database search will be conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Clinicaltrials.org targeting studies from inception to search date. Studies will be screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria and data extracted into a spreadsheet. Screening, extraction, and risk-of-bias assessments will be performed independently by two reviewers and discrepancies resolved by a third independent reviewer. Primary outcomes include complication rates (e.g., capsular contracture, infection, implant malposition), patient-reported satisfaction (BREAST-Q), and drain time. Data analysis and meta-analysis will be performed using Microsoft Excel and Review Manager 5.4 software. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I DISCUSSION: With the increasing use of ADMs in IBBR, it is important that surgeons have adequate evidence available to assist operative decision-making. This meta-analysis will help surgeons determine whether one ADM is better than the other. This could potentially minimize the risk of patient complications, improve patient satisfaction, and decrease unnecessary hospital readmissions or reoperations due to avoidable complications, thereby decreasing healthcare costs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024542928.
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.