ArticleJPRAS open2026
Impact of premastectomy versus postmastectomy radiotherapy on postoperative complications in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in JPRAS open, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The present study aimed to performed a systemic review and meta-analysis to compare. Impact of premastectomy radiotherapy (Pre-MRT) versus Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) on Postoperative Complications in Breast Reconstruction. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 3, 2026. Eligible studies compared Pre-MRT and PMRT for postoperative complications following breast reconstruction. Random-effects models were used to estimate pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Three studies, including one randomized-controlled trial and two cohort studies comprising a total of 483 breasts were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the rate of postoperative complications between the PreMRT and PMRT groups (pooled RR: 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-2.06; p = 0.0583). Subgroup analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences observed in the rates of complete flap loss, skin flap necrosis, local recurrence, hematoma, seroma, infection, implant loss, or complete nipple necrosis. Conclusion: This meta-analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in postoperative complication rates between PreMRT and PMRT in patients undergoing breast reconstruction. However, given the limited number of included studies and the imprecision of the pooled estimates, these findings should be interpreted with caution.
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.