4.6 Review

Best Practices for BREAST-Q Research: A Systematic Review of Study Methodology

Journal

PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
Volume 150, Issue 3, Pages 526E-535E

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009401

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review evaluates the quality of BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module administration and highlights actionable shortcomings in the literature. The authors call for researchers to review the BREAST-Q user's guide to improve patient-reported outcome measure administration and reporting in future trials.
Background: Data heterogeneity and methodologic errors hinder the ability to draw clinically meaningful conclusions from studies using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module patient-reported outcome measure. In this systematic review, the authors evaluate the quality of BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module administration in relation to the BREAST-Q version 2.0 user's guide and the reporting of key methodology characteristics. The authors also describe a framework for improving the quality of BREAST-Q data analysis and reporting. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Ovid HAPI databases to identify articles on the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module to assess postmastectomy breast reconstruction outcomes. The authors registered the protocol before study implementation on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/c5236) and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data on mode of BREAST-Q administration, time horizon justification, and sample size calculation were collected. Results: The authors included 185 studies in the analysis. Errors in BREAST-Q administration were identified in 36 studies (19.5 percent). Appropriate administration of the BREAST-Q could not be determined in 63 studies (34.1 percent) because of insufficient reporting. Time horizon for the primary outcome was reported in 71 studies (38.4 percent), with only 17 (9.2 percent) reporting a sample size calculation. Conclusions: The authors identified important yet actionable shortcomings in the BREAST-Q literature. Researchers are encouraged to review the BREAST-Q user's guide in the study design phase to mitigate errors in patient-reported outcome measure administration and reporting for future trials using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module. Adhering to these guidelines will allow for greater clinical utility and generalizability of BREAST-Q research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available