Patient-Reported Outcomes After Reduction Mammoplasty Using BREAST-Q: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The BREAST-Q questionnaire reduction module is an established tool for outcomes after reduction mammoplasty. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis assess key parameters affecting pre- and postoperative scores, with specific foci on patient characteristics and tissue resection weights. METHODS: This study was conducted per PRISMA guidelines. PUBMED (National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, MD), Google Scholar (Google; Mountain View, CA), and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics; Philadelphia, PA) were searched. All studies published before August 1, 2021, were assessed for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were prospective or retrospective studies in 6 languages that reported quality of life after reduction mammoplasty employing the BREAST-Q questionnaire reduction module. Quality of included studies was assessed employing the Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale. Analysis was performed per Cochrane Collaboration and the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 28 papers were included in the systematic review, 13 for preoperative meta-analysis, and 17 for postoperative meta-analysis. Postoperative scores in all 3 quality of life domains (psychosocial, physical, and sexual well-being) and satisfaction with breasts increased significantly after reduction mammoplasty compared with preoperative scores. Satisfaction with breasts showed the greatest improvement, from 22.9 to 73.0. Preoperative scores were lower than normative data, with improvement to comparable scores as the healthy population postoperatively. Improvements in BREAST-Q scores did not correlate with patient comorbidities, complication rates, or amount of breast tissue resected. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction mammoplasty provides marked improvement in BREAST-Q patient-reported quality of life as well established in literature. However, these improvements do not correlate with tissue resection weights, warranting further inquiry of insurance-defined resection requirements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".