scholarly journals Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Breast Reduction Mammaplasty: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 383-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Waltho ◽  
Lucas Gallo ◽  
Matteo Gallo ◽  
Jessica Murphy ◽  
Andrea Copeland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Breast Reduction ◽  
Reduction Mammaplasty ◽  
Life Outcomes ◽  
Breast Hypertrophy ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Clinical Measures

Abstract Background Reduction mammaplasty remains critical to the treatment of breast hypertrophy. No technique has been shown to be superior; however, comparison between studies is difficult due to variation in outcome reporting. Objectives The authors sought to identify a comprehensive list of outcomes and outcome measures in reduction mammaplasty. Methods A comprehensive computerized search was performed. Included studies were randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials involving at least 100 cases of female breast hypertrophy and patients of all ages who underwent 1 or more defined reduction mammaplasty technique. Outcomes and outcome measures were extracted and tabulated. Results A total 106 articles were eligible for inclusion; 57 unique outcomes and 16 outcome measures were identified. Frequency of patient-reported and author-reported outcomes were 44% and 88%, respectively. Postoperative complications were the most frequently reported outcome (82.2%). Quality-of-life outcomes were accounted for in 37.7% of studies. Outcome measures were either condition-specific or generic; frequencies were as low as 1% and as high as 5.6%. Five scales were formally assessed in the breast reduction populations. Clinical measures were defined in 15.1% of studies. Conclusions There is marked heterogeneity in reporting of outcomes and outcome measures in the literature. A standardized outcome set is needed to compare outcomes of various reduction mammaplasty techniques. Level of Evidence: 4

Assessing Disparities in Reduction Mammaplasty: There Is Room for Improvement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin P Morris ◽  
Adrienne N Christopher ◽  
Viren Patel ◽  
Robyn B Broach ◽  
John P Fischer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Reduction ◽  
Reduction Mammaplasty ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Surgical Care ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Median Income ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Black African ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Racial and socioeconomic disparities in access and quality of surgical care are well documented in many surgical subspecialties, including plastic surgery. Objectives The authors aimed to determine if demographic disparities exist in preoperative and postoperative satisfaction after breast reduction mammaplasty, utilizing patient-reported quality of life (QoL) scores. Methods Patients who underwent breast reduction mammaplasty between 2015 and 2020 were identified. Patients who underwent complex concomitant procedures were excluded. Patient demographics and QoL, as measured by the BREAST-Q, were extracted. Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests were employed to compare QoL scores across demographic subgroups. Results A total of 115 patients met the inclusion criteria. QoL improved across all 4 BREAST-Q domains (all P < 0.001). Disparities were shown to exist in the following: median income vs postoperative satisfaction with information (P < 0.001), BMI vs preoperative physical well-being (P < 0.001), and ethnicity vs preoperative physical well-being (P = 0.003). A sub-group analysis of Caucasian patients compared with Black/African American patients revealed significant inequalities in BMI (P < 0.001), median income by zip code (P < 0.001), improvement in satisfaction with breasts (P = 0.039), satisfaction with information (P = 0.007), and satisfaction with office staff (P = 0.044). Conclusions Racial and socioeconomic inequalities exist in preoperative and postoperative satisfaction for patients undergoing breast reduction mammaplasty. Institutions should focus on developing tools for equitable and inclusive patient education and perioperative counseling. Level of Evidence: 2

scholarly journals Patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in relation to provider-assessed adverse events during head and neck radiotherapy

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua R. Niska ◽  
Cameron S. Thorpe ◽  
Michele Y. Halyard ◽  
Angelina D. Tan ◽  
Pamela J. Atherton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Life Outcomes ◽  
Quality Of Life Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Head And Neck Radiotherapy

scholarly journals Enabling patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials, exemplified by cardiovascular trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa M. Coles ◽  
Adrian F. Hernandez ◽  
Bryce B. Reeve ◽  
Karon Cook ◽  
Michael C. Edwards ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Contextual Factors ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Evidentiary Standards

Abstract Objectives There has been limited success in achieving integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. We describe how stakeholders envision a solution to this challenge. Methods Stakeholders from academia, industry, non-profits, insurers, clinicians, and the Food and Drug Administration convened at a Think Tank meeting funded by the Duke Clinical Research Institute to discuss the challenges of incorporating PROs into clinical trials and how to address those challenges. Using examples from cardiovascular trials, this article describes a potential path forward with a focus on applications in the United States. Results Think Tank members identified one key challenge: a common understanding of the level of evidence that is necessary to support patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in trials. Think Tank participants discussed the possibility of creating general evidentiary standards depending upon contextual factors, but such guidelines could not be feasibly developed because many contextual factors are at play. The attendees posited that a more informative approach to PROM evidentiary standards would be to develop validity arguments akin to courtroom briefs, which would emphasize a compelling rationale (interpretation/use argument) to support a PROM within a specific context. Participants envisioned a future in which validity arguments would be publicly available via a repository, which would be indexed by contextual factors, clinical populations, and types of claims. Conclusions A publicly available repository would help stakeholders better understand what a community believes constitutes compelling support for a specific PROM in a trial. Our proposed strategy is expected to facilitate the incorporation of PROMs into cardiovascular clinical trials and trials in general.

Risk Factors for Poor Patient-Reported Quality of Life Outcomes After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Spine ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (19) ◽  
pp. 1502-1510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Makino ◽  
Takashi Kaito ◽  
Hiroyasu Fujiwara ◽  
Hirotsugu Honda ◽  
Yusuke Sakai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Life Outcomes ◽  
Poor Patient ◽  
Quality Of Life Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported

Patient Reported Outcome Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life and Asthenia after Thyroidectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol 264 ◽  
pp. 394-401
Author(s):  
Mary Kate Luddy ◽  
Rachel Vetter ◽  
Jessica Shank ◽  
Whitney Goldner ◽  
Anery Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document