Literature DB >> 31577663

Giving Meaning to Differences in BREAST-Q Scores: Minimal Important Difference for Breast Reconstruction Patients.

Sophocles H Voineskos1, Anne F Klassen1, Stefan J Cano1, Andrea L Pusic1, Christopher J Gibbons1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The reconstruction module of the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure is frequently used by investigators and in clinical practice. A minimal important difference establishes the smallest change in outcome measure score that patients perceive to be important. To enhance interpretability of the BREAST-Q reconstruction module, the authors determined minimal important difference estimates using distribution-based methods.
METHODS: An analysis of prospectively collected data from 3052 Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium patients was performed. The authors used distribution-based methods to investigate the minimal important difference for the entire patient sample and three clinically relevant groups. The authors used both 0.2 SD units (effect size) and the standardized response mean value of 0.2 as distribution-based criteria. Clinical experience was used to guide and assess appropriateness of results.
RESULTS: A total of 3052 patients had BREAST-Q data available for analysis. The average age and body mass index were 49.5 and 26.8, respectively. The minimal important difference estimates for each domain were 4 (Satisfaction with Breasts), 4 (Psychosocial Well-being), 3 (Physical Well-being), and 4 (Sexual Well-being). The minimal important difference estimates for each domain were similar when compared within the three clinically relevant groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors propose that a minimal important difference score of 4 points on the transformed 0 to 100 scale is clinically useful when assessing an individual patient's outcome using the reconstruction module of the BREAST-Q. When designing research studies, investigators should use the minimal important difference estimate for their domain of interest when calculating sample size. The authors acknowledge that distribution-based minimal important differences are estimates and may vary based on patient population and context.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31577663     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006317

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  17 in total

1.  Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial Outcomes Following Surgery in Women with Unilateral Nonhereditary Breast Cancer.

Authors:  David W Lim; Helene Retrouvey; Isabel Kerrebijn; Kate Butler; Anne C O'Neill; Tulin D Cil; Toni Zhong; Stefan O P Hofer; David R McCready; Kelly A Metcalfe
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-04-05       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Understanding Preoperative Breast Satisfaction among Patients Undergoing Mastectomy and Immediate Reconstruction: BREAST-Q Insights.

Authors:  Meghana G Shamsunder; Thais O Polanco; Colleen M McCarthy; Robert J Allen; Evan Matros; Michelle Coriddi; Babak J Mehrara; Andrea Pusic; Jonas A Nelson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Cancer worry after facial nonmelanoma skin cancer resection and reconstruction: A 1-year prospective study.

Authors:  Lucy J van Hensbergen; Inge J Veldhuizen; Erica H Lee; Saskia Houterman; Tjinta Brinkhuizen; René R W J van der Hulst; Maarten M Hoogbergen
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 3.955

4.  Area Deprivation Index is Associated with Variation in Quality of Life and Psychosocial Well-being Following Breast Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Abbas M Hassan; Huan T Nguyen; Joseph P Corkum; Jun Liu; Sahil K Kapur; Carrie K Chu; Nina Tamirisa; Anaeze C Offodile
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-09-09       Impact factor: 4.339

5.  Surgical and Patient Reported Outcomes After DIEP Breast Reconstruction at a Low-Volume Community Hospital Without Microvascular Fellowship Training.

Authors:  Kenneth K Kao; Scott M Nishikawa; Paul D Faringer
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2021-09-29

6.  Smooth versus Textured Implant Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications.

Authors:  Joshua Vorstenbosch; Colleen M McCarthy; Meghana G Shamsunder; Thais O Polanco; Stefan Dabic; Itay Wiser; Evan Matros; Joseph Dayan; Joseph J Disa; Andrea L Pusic; Michele R Cavalli; Elizabeth Encarnacion; Meghan Lee; Babak J Mehrara; Jonas A Nelson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 5.169

7.  Comparisons of Therapeutic and Aesthetic Effects of One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with and without Biological Matrix.

Authors:  Peng Gao; Zhongzhao Wang; Xiangyi Kong; Xiangyu Wang; Yi Fang; Jing Wang
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 3.989

8.  Perspectives of Women Who Forgo Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Mixed Methods Analysis.

Authors:  Tanvee Singh; Lakshmi Goparaju; Aviram M Giladi; Oluseyi Aliu; David H Song; Kenneth L Fan
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-02-22

9.  Perioperative Inpatient Opioid Consumption Following Autologous Free-Flap Breast Reconstruction Patients: An Examination of Risk and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Authors:  Jonas A Nelson; Thais O Polanco; Meghana G Shamsunder; Michelle Coriddi; Evan Matros; Madeleine E V Hicks; Joseph J Disa; Babak J Mehrara; Robert J Allen; Joseph H Dayan; Anoushka Afonso
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-05-06       Impact factor: 4.339

10.  Prepectoral and Subpectoral Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of 90-Day Clinical and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes.

Authors:  Jonas A Nelson; Meghana G Shamsunder; Joshua Vorstenbosch; Thais O Polanco; Evan Matros; Michelle R Coriddi; Babak J Mehrara; Robert J Allen; Joseph H Dayan; Joseph J Disa
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 5.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.