The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Breast Surgery: The BREAST-Q
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measuring patient-reported outcomes has become increasingly important in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery. The objective of this study was to develop a new patient-reported outcome measure to assess the unique outcomes of breast surgery patients. METHODS: Patient interviews, focus groups, expert panels, and a literature review were used to develop a conceptual framework and a list of questionnaire items. Three procedure-specific questionnaires (augmentation, reduction, and reconstruction) were developed and cognitive debriefing interviews used to pilot each questionnaire. Revised questionnaires were field tested with 1950 women at five centers in the United States and Canada (response rate, 72 percent); 491 patients also completed a test-retest questionnaire. Rasch measurement methods were used to construct scales, and traditional psychometric analyses, following currently recommended procedures and criteria, were performed to allow for comparison with existing measures. RESULTS: The conceptual framework included six domains: satisfaction with breasts, overall outcome, and process of care, and psychosocial, physical, and sexual well-being. Independent scales were constructed for these domains. This new patient-reported outcome measure "system" (the BREAST-Q) contains three modules (augmentation, reconstruction, and reduction), each with a preoperative and postoperative version. Each scale fulfilled Rasch and traditional psychometric criteria (including person separation index 0.76 to 0.95; Cronbach's alpha 0.81 to 0.96; and test-retest reproducibility 0.73 to 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: The BREAST-Q can be used to study the impact and effectiveness of breast surgery from the patient's perspective. By quantifying satisfaction and important aspects of health-related quality of life, the BREAST-Q has the potential to support advocacy, quality metrics, and an evidence-based approach to surgical practice.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Flesch, R. (1948) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0057532 · Cited by 5,391
Andrich, D. (1988) · doi:10.4135/9781412985598 · Cited by 1,345
Hobart, J., & Cano, S. (2009) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta13120 · Cited by 621
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Cano, 2004, Br J Plast Surg, 57, 11, 10.1016/j.bjps.2003.08.008 · DOI
- Pusic, 2008, Clin Plast Surg, 35, 215, 10.1016/j.cps.2007.10.010 · DOI
- Lam, 2008, J Pediatr Surg, 43, 819, 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.12.020 · doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.12.020
- Faria, 1999, Br J Plast Surg, 52, 448, 10.1054/bjps.1999.3167 · doi:10.1054/bjps.1999.3167
- Reaby, 1994, Health Care Women Int, 15, 361, 10.1080/07399339409516129 · DOI
- Pusic, 2007, Plast Reconstr Surg, 120, 823, 10.1097/01.prs.0000278162.82906.81 · DOI · Paper page
- 2002, Qual Life Res, 11, 193, 10.1023/A:1015291021312 · DOI · Paper page
- Cano, 2006, Br J Plast Surg, 59, 65
- Cano, 2004, J Hand Surg (Br.), 29, 477, 10.1016/j.jhsb.2004.06.002 · DOI
- Klassen, 2009, BMC Womens Health, 9, 11, 10.1186/1472-6874-9-11 · DOI · Paper page
- Rasch, 1966, Br J Math Stat Psychol, 19, 49, 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1966.tb00354.x · DOI · Paper page
- Wright, 1977, J Educ Meas, 14, 97, 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1977.tb00031.x · DOI · Paper page
- Andrich, 1978, Psychometrika, 43, 561, 10.1007/BF02293814 · DOI · Paper page
- Andrich, 1982, Educ Psychol Res, 9, 95
- Andrich, 2002, Stud Educ Eval, 28, 103, 10.1016/S0191-491X(02)00015-9 · DOI
- Hobart, 2007, Lancet Neurol, 6, 1094, 10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70290-9 · DOI · Paper page
- Likert, 1932, Arch Psychol, 140, 5
Cited by
Identifying and Avoiding Bias in Research
Pannucci, C. J., & Wilkins, E. G. (2010) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3181de24bc · Cited by 1,079
Patient involvement in the development of patient‐reported outcome measures: a scoping review
Wiering, B., de Boer, D., & Delnoij, D. (2017) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12442 · Cited by 371
Temple-Oberle, C., Shea-Budgell, M. A., Tan, M., Semple, J. L., Schrag, C., Barreto, M., Blondeel, P., Hamming, J., Dayan, J., & Ljungqvist, O. (2017) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000003242 · Cited by 361
Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the FACE-Q Satisfaction with Appearance Scale
Pusic, A. L., Klassen, A. F., Scott, A. M., & Cano, S. J. (2013) · Clinics in Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.cps.2012.12.001 · Cited by 253
Self-citationLife Satisfaction, Body Image and Associated Factors among Women with Breast Cancer after Mastectomy
Phoosuwan, N., & Lundberg, P. C. (2023) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.6106 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Pusic, A. L., Klassen, A. F., Scott, A. M., Klok, J. A., Cordeiro, P. G., & Cano, S. J.
- Venue
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
- Published
- 2009-08
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 345-353
- ISSN
- 0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2030993903
- Cited by
- 1,873
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 25.22
- 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: Development of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Breast Surgery: The BREAST-Q. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/prs.0b013e3181aee807
- The paper
- Pusic, A. L., Klassen, A. F., Scott, A. M., Klok, J. A., Cordeiro, P. G., & Cano, S. J. (2009). Development of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Breast Surgery: The BREAST-Q. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e3181aee807
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.