Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring Quality of Life in Cosmetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery: A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes Instruments

Pusic, Andrea L., Chen, Constance M., Cano, Stefan, Klassen, Anne, McCarthy, Colleen, Collins, E Dale, Cordeiro, Peter G.·2007·Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery are increasingly important for clinical research endeavors. Traditional surgical outcomes, centered on morbidity and mortality, remain important but are no longer sufficient on their own. Quality of life has become a crucial research topic augmenting traditional concerns focused on complications and survival. Given this, reliable and valid patient questionnaires are essential for aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgeons. METHODS: The authors performed a systematic literature review to identify patient-reported outcome measures developed and validated for use in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery patients. Qualifying instruments were assessed for adherence to international guidelines for health outcomes instrument development and validation. RESULTS: The authors identified 227 health outcomes questionnaires used in breast surgery studies. After 135 generic instruments, 65 ad hoc instruments, seven oncologic instruments, 11 education questionnaires, and two non-English-language questionnaires were excluded, seven measures remained. Detailed analysis revealed that six of the seven measures had undergone limited development and validation. Only one measure, the Breast-Related Symptoms Questionnaire, demonstrated adequate development and validation in its target population. It had, nevertheless, significant content limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Valid, reliable, and responsive instruments to measure patient-reported outcomes in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery are lacking. To demonstrate the benefits of aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery, future research to rigorously develop and validate new cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery-specific instruments is needed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.prs.0000278162.82906.81

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 258

Metadata

Authors
Pusic, A. L., Chen, C. M., Cano, S., Klassen, A., McCarthy, C., Collins, E. D., & Cordeiro, P. G.
Venue
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Published
2007-09
Volume
120
Issue
4
Pages
823-837
ISSN
0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2148264995
Cited by
258
References
11
FWCI
1.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring Quality of Life in Cosmetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery: A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes Instruments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.prs.0000278162.82906.81
The paper
Pusic, A. L., Chen, C. M., Cano, S., Klassen, A., McCarthy, C., Collins, E. D., & Cordeiro, P. G. (2007). Measuring Quality of Life in Cosmetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery: A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes Instruments. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000278162.82906.81

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.