ReviewAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2026
BREAST-Q Under the Microscope: A Scoping Review of Reporting Gaps in Breast Surgery.
Review in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The BREAST-Q was developed to address a gap in breast surgery outcomes research as a validated, procedure-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that assesses satisfaction and health related quality of life. Despite global adoption, reporting practices remain inconsistent. This review evaluated how BREAST-Q domains are reported and compated outcomes between postmastectomy reconstruction and cosmetic breast surgery populations. Five databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched from January 1, 2009 to September 16, 2022. Of 6921 records, 307 studies met inclusion criteria. Eligible studies reported mean BREAST-Q scores (0-100 scale) in patients undergoing postmastectomy reconstruction, breast augmentation, or breast reduction. Studies were grouped as reconstruction (Group 1) or cosmetic (Group 2). Extracted data included publication year, country, sample size, BREAST-Q means ± standard deviation and domain coverage. Analyses were descriptive due to heterogeneity in design, populations, and follow-up The most frequently reported domains in both groups were psychosocial well-being, satisfaction with breasts, and sexual well-being (Group 1: 79.12%, 91.21%, and 77.29%; Group 2: 74.55%, 96.36%, and 83.64%). The aggregate global weighted mean BREAST-Q score was higher in Group 2 than in Group 1 (81.99 vs 74.49), Though these values represent descriptive estimates, not direct comparisons. Although widely used, BREAST-Q reporting is inconsistent, with disproportionate emphasis on select domains. This selective reporting introduces bias and limits comparability. Comprehensive reporting across all domains, or inclusion of an overall summary score, would better reflect patient satisfaction and align with the instrument's intended purpose. Level of Evidence: 3 (Therapeutic).
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.