Bibliometric analysis of quality of life in implant-based breast reconstruction

Kian Daneshi, Francesca Ruccia, Radhika Merh, Tommaso Barlattani, Raed Alderhalli, Mark Warren Clemens, Ankur Khajuria
{"title":"Bibliometric analysis of quality of life in implant-based breast reconstruction","authors":"Kian Daneshi, Francesca Ruccia, Radhika Merh, Tommaso Barlattani, Raed Alderhalli, Mark Warren Clemens, Ankur Khajuria","doi":"10.3389/fonc.2024.1429885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR), following mastectomy, significantly impacts patients’ quality of life (QoL), necessitating accurate measurement through psychometrically robust patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) tools. This bibliometric analysis aims to discern trends, identify gaps, and evaluate the use of such tools in the IBR literature.The 100 most cited publications regarding QoL in implant-based reconstruction were identified on Web of Science, across all available journal years (from 1977 to 2024) on 10 March 2024. Study details, including the citation count, main content focus, outcome measures, and usage of psychological questionnaires, were extracted and tabulated from each publication. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels of evidence (LOE) of each study were assessed.The 100 most cited publications on QoL in implant-based reconstruction were identified, encompassing 64,192 patients and 28,114 reconstructed breasts. Citations per publication ranged from 62 to 457 (mean, 124.95 ± 73.05), with the highest-cited study being authored by Al-Ghazal (n = 457). The vast majority of publications were LOE II (n = 52), representative of prospective cohort studies, systematic reviews of non-randomised studies, and systematic review and meta-analysis. The number of publications for LOE V, IV, III, and I was 0, 7, 41, and 0, respectively. The main content focus was “quality of life” in 83 publications, with significant utilisation of the BREAST-Q questionnaire. A total of 80 publications used validated questionnaires with psychometric development.This analysis demonstrates that the research methodologies within IBR mostly consist of moderate-quality publications; however, notably, there was a lack of LOE I studies, underscoring a gap in high-quality research within the field. Moreover, only 62/100 used validated PROM tools. Future IBR research studies should be focussed on most robust methodologies, incorporating validated PROM tools, to optimise shared-decision making and informed consent.","PeriodicalId":507440,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Oncology","volume":"18 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1429885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR), following mastectomy, significantly impacts patients’ quality of life (QoL), necessitating accurate measurement through psychometrically robust patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) tools. This bibliometric analysis aims to discern trends, identify gaps, and evaluate the use of such tools in the IBR literature.The 100 most cited publications regarding QoL in implant-based reconstruction were identified on Web of Science, across all available journal years (from 1977 to 2024) on 10 March 2024. Study details, including the citation count, main content focus, outcome measures, and usage of psychological questionnaires, were extracted and tabulated from each publication. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels of evidence (LOE) of each study were assessed.The 100 most cited publications on QoL in implant-based reconstruction were identified, encompassing 64,192 patients and 28,114 reconstructed breasts. Citations per publication ranged from 62 to 457 (mean, 124.95 ± 73.05), with the highest-cited study being authored by Al-Ghazal (n = 457). The vast majority of publications were LOE II (n = 52), representative of prospective cohort studies, systematic reviews of non-randomised studies, and systematic review and meta-analysis. The number of publications for LOE V, IV, III, and I was 0, 7, 41, and 0, respectively. The main content focus was “quality of life” in 83 publications, with significant utilisation of the BREAST-Q questionnaire. A total of 80 publications used validated questionnaires with psychometric development.This analysis demonstrates that the research methodologies within IBR mostly consist of moderate-quality publications; however, notably, there was a lack of LOE I studies, underscoring a gap in high-quality research within the field. Moreover, only 62/100 used validated PROM tools. Future IBR research studies should be focussed on most robust methodologies, incorporating validated PROM tools, to optimise shared-decision making and informed consent.
假体乳房重建中生活质量的文献计量分析
乳房切除术后的植入式乳房再造(IBR)会对患者的生活质量(QoL)产生重大影响,因此有必要通过心理统计学上可靠的患者报告结果测量(PROM)工具进行精确测量。本文献计量学分析旨在辨别趋势、找出差距并评估此类工具在 IBR 文献中的使用情况。2024 年 3 月 10 日,我们在 Web of Science 上确定了 100 篇有关植入式重建中 QoL 的最高引用率出版物,涉及所有可用期刊年份(从 1977 年到 2024 年)。从每篇出版物中提取了研究细节,包括引用次数、主要内容重点、结果测量和心理问卷的使用情况,并制成表格。对每项研究的牛津循证医学中心(OCEBM)证据等级(LOE)进行了评估。确定了100篇关于植入物重建中QoL的最常被引用的出版物,涉及64192名患者和28114个重建乳房。每篇论文的引用次数从62次到457次不等(平均值为124.95 ± 73.05),引用次数最高的研究由Al-Ghazal撰写(n = 457)。绝大多数出版物为 LOE II(n = 52),代表前瞻性队列研究、非随机研究的系统综述以及系统综述和荟萃分析。LOE V、IV、III 和 I 的出版物数量分别为 0、7、41 和 0。83篇出版物的主要内容是 "生活质量",其中大量使用了BREAST-Q问卷。这项分析表明,IBR 的研究方法大多由中等质量的出版物组成;但值得注意的是,缺乏 LOE I 研究,这凸显了该领域在高质量研究方面的差距。此外,只有 62/100 的研究使用了经过验证的 PROM 工具。未来的 IBR 研究应将重点放在最可靠的方法上,并结合有效的 PROM 工具,以优化共同决策和知情同意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信