This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.

Ms. Marta Maes-Carballo
Complexo Hospitalario Universitario Ourense

Basic Info


Research Keywords & Expertise

0 Breast Cancer
0 Breast Surgery
0 Consensus
0 Systematic Reviews and Meta analysis
0 oncoplastic breast surgery

Honors and Awards

The user has no records in this section


Career Timeline

The user has no records in this section.


Short Biography

Breast cancer specialist and surgeon in the Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Spain, and researcher at the Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, at the University of Granada, Spain. Her research studies are focused on breast cancer management, shared decision making, and health care quality.

Following
Followers
Co Authors
The list of users this user is following is empty.
Following: 0 users

Feed

Correspondence
Published: 27 August 2021 in Revista de Senología y Patología Mamaria
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Marta Maes-Carballo; Luciano Mignini; Manuel Martín Díaz. Encuesta sobre la toma de decisiones compartidas en el cáncer de mama. Revista de Senología y Patología Mamaria 2021, 1 .

AMA Style

Marta Maes-Carballo, Luciano Mignini, Manuel Martín Díaz. Encuesta sobre la toma de decisiones compartidas en el cáncer de mama. Revista de Senología y Patología Mamaria. 2021; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marta Maes-Carballo; Luciano Mignini; Manuel Martín Díaz. 2021. "Encuesta sobre la toma de decisiones compartidas en el cáncer de mama." Revista de Senología y Patología Mamaria , no. : 1.

Review
Published: 02 July 2021 in The Breast
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Objectives We evaluated breast cancer (BC) care quality indicators (QIs) in clinical pathways and integrated health care processes. Methods Following protocol registration (Prospero no: CRD42021228867), relevant documents were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE), health care valuable representatives and the World Wide Web in April 2021. Data concerning QIs, measurement tools and compliance standards were extracted from European and North American sources in duplicate with 98% reviewer agreement. Results There were 89 QIs found from 22 selected documents (QI per document mean 13.5 with standard deviation 11.9). The Belgian (38 QIs) and the EUSOMA (European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists) (34 QIs) documents were the ones that best reported the QIs. No identical QI was identified in all the documents analysed. There were 67/89 QIs covering processes (75.3%) and 11/89 (12.4%) for each structure and outcomes QIs. There were 21/89 QIs for diagnosis (30.3%), 43/89 for treatment (48.3%), and 19/89 for staging, counselling, follow-up and rehabilitation (21.4%). Of 67 process QIs and 11 outcome QIs, 20/78 (26%) did not report a minimum standard of care. Shared decision making was only included as a QI in the Italian document. Conclusion More than half of countries have not established a national clinical pathway or integrated breast cancer care process to achieve the excellence of BC care. There was heterogeneity in QIs for the evaluation of BC care quality. Over two-thirds of the clinical pathways and integrated health care processes did not provide a minimum auditable standard of care for compliance, leaving open the definition of best practice. There is a need for harmonisation of BC care QIs.

ACS Style

Marta Maes-Carballo; Yolanda Gómez-Fandiño; Ayla Reinoso Hermida; Carlos Roberto Estrada-López; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Khalid Saeed Khan; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas. Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematic review. The Breast 2021, 59, 221 -231.

AMA Style

Marta Maes-Carballo, Yolanda Gómez-Fandiño, Ayla Reinoso Hermida, Carlos Roberto Estrada-López, Manuel Martín-Díaz, Khalid Saeed Khan, Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas. Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematic review. The Breast. 2021; 59 ():221-231.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marta Maes-Carballo; Yolanda Gómez-Fandiño; Ayla Reinoso Hermida; Carlos Roberto Estrada-López; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Khalid Saeed Khan; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas. 2021. "Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematic review." The Breast 59, no. : 221-231.

Review
Published: 20 June 2021 in European Journal of Public Health
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Background Shared decision making (SDM) is a key component of evidence-based and patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to systematically review the quality of SDM proposals in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) concerning breast cancer (BC) screening. Methods Guidances were identified, without language restrictions, using a prospectively planned systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and guideline websites) from January 2010 to August 2020. Duplicate data extraction used a 31-item SDM quality assessment tool; reviewer agreement was 98%. Results SDM appeared only in 38 (49.4%) (33/68 CPGs, 4/9 CSs) documents (overall compliance with the quality tool: mean 5.74, IQR 3–8). CPGs and CSs specifically mentioning the term SDM (n = 12) had higher quality (mean 6.8, IQR 4–9 vs. mean 2.1, IQR 0–3; P = 0.001). No differences were found in mean quality comparing CPGs with CSs (3 vs. 1.6; P = 0.634), use of systematic review (4.2 vs. 2.9; P = 0.929) and publication in a journal (4 vs. 1.9; P = 0.094). Guidances with SDM were more recently reported than those without it (mean 41 vs. 57 months; P = 0.042). Conclusion More than half of all the guidelines did not meet SDM quality criteria. Those that explored it were more recently reported. There is an urgent need for promoting SDM in guidances concerning BC screening issued by institutions, professional associations and medical journals.

ACS Style

Marta Maes-Carballo; Teresa Moreno-Asencio; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Luciano Mignini; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas; Khalid Saeed Khan. Shared decision making in breast cancer screening guidelines: a systematic review of their quality and reporting. European Journal of Public Health 2021, 1 .

AMA Style

Marta Maes-Carballo, Teresa Moreno-Asencio, Manuel Martín-Díaz, Luciano Mignini, Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas, Khalid Saeed Khan. Shared decision making in breast cancer screening guidelines: a systematic review of their quality and reporting. European Journal of Public Health. 2021; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marta Maes-Carballo; Teresa Moreno-Asencio; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Luciano Mignini; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas; Khalid Saeed Khan. 2021. "Shared decision making in breast cancer screening guidelines: a systematic review of their quality and reporting." European Journal of Public Health , no. : 1.

Systematic review
Published: 13 June 2021 in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Breast cancer (BC) management care requires an increment in quality. An initiative to improve the BC quality care is registered, and quality indicators (QIs) are studied. We appraised the appearance of QIs and their standards systematically in Spain. A prospective systematic search (Prospero no: CRD42021228867) for clinical pathways and integrated breast cancer care processes was conducted through databases and the World Wide Web in February 2021. Duplicate data extraction was performed with 98% reviewer agreement. Seventy-four QIs (QI per document mean: 11; standard deviation: 10.59) were found in 15 documents. The Catalonian document had the highest number of QIs (n = 30). No QI appeared in all the documents. There were 9/74 QIs covering structure (12.16%), 53/74 covering process (71.62%), and 12/74 covering outcome (16.22%). A total of 22/66 (33.33%) process and outcome QIs did not set a minimum standard of care. QIs related to primary care, patient satisfaction, and shared decision making were deficient. Most of the documents established a BC QI standard for compliance, but the high variability hinders the comparison of outcomes. Establishing a consensus-based set of QIs needs urgent attention.

ACS Style

Marta Maes-Carballo; Yolanda Gómez-Fandiño; Carlos Estrada-López; Ayla Reinoso-Hermida; Khalid Khan; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas. Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators in Spain: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2021, 18, 6411 .

AMA Style

Marta Maes-Carballo, Yolanda Gómez-Fandiño, Carlos Estrada-López, Ayla Reinoso-Hermida, Khalid Khan, Manuel Martín-Díaz, Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas. Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators in Spain: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18 (12):6411.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marta Maes-Carballo; Yolanda Gómez-Fandiño; Carlos Estrada-López; Ayla Reinoso-Hermida; Khalid Khan; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas. 2021. "Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators in Spain: A Systematic Review." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 12: 6411.

Journal article
Published: 22 February 2021 in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Objectives: To assess shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge, attitude and application among health professionals involved in breast cancer (BC) treatment. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study based on an online questionnaire, sent by several professional societies to health professionals involved in BC management. There were 26 questions which combined demographic and professional data with some items measured on a Likert-type scale. Results: The participation (459/541; 84.84%) and completion (443/459; 96.51%) rates were high. Participants strongly agreed or agreed in 69.57% (16/23) of their responses. The majority stated that they knew of SDM (mean 4.43 (4.36–4.55)) and were in favour of its implementation (mean 4.58 (4.51–4.64)). They highlighted that SDM practice was not adequate due to lack of resources (3.46 (3.37–3.55)) and agreed on policies that improved its implementation (3.96 (3.88–4.04)). The main advantage of SDM for participants was patient satisfaction (38%), and the main disadvantage was the patients’ paucity of knowledge to understand their disease (24%). The main obstacle indicated was the lack of time and resources (40%). Conclusions: New policies must be designed for adequate training of professionals in integrating SDM in clinical practice, preparing them to use SDM with adequate resources and time provided.

ACS Style

Marta Maes-Carballo; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Luciano Mignini; Khalid Khan; Rubén Trigueros; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas. Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2021, 18, 2128 .

AMA Style

Marta Maes-Carballo, Manuel Martín-Díaz, Luciano Mignini, Khalid Khan, Rubén Trigueros, Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas. Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18 (4):2128.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marta Maes-Carballo; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Luciano Mignini; Khalid Khan; Rubén Trigueros; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas. 2021. "Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 4: 2128.

Editorial
Published: 08 January 2021 in Revista de Senología y Patología Mamaria
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Marta Maes-Carballo; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Luciano Mignini. La toma de decisiones compartida: una mirada hacia el futuro de la práctica médica de calidad en el cáncer de mama. Revista de Senología y Patología Mamaria 2021, 34, 125 -127.

AMA Style

Marta Maes-Carballo, Manuel Martín-Díaz, Luciano Mignini. La toma de decisiones compartida: una mirada hacia el futuro de la práctica médica de calidad en el cáncer de mama. Revista de Senología y Patología Mamaria. 2021; 34 (3):125-127.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marta Maes-Carballo; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Luciano Mignini. 2021. "La toma de decisiones compartida: una mirada hacia el futuro de la práctica médica de calidad en el cáncer de mama." Revista de Senología y Patología Mamaria 34, no. 3: 125-127.

Review
Published: 01 October 2020 in The Breast
Reads 0
Downloads 0

BackgroundHigh-quality, well-reported clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) underpinned by systematic reviews are needed. We appraised the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs for breast cancer (BC) treatment.MethodsFollowing protocol registration (Prospero no: CRD42020164801), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2017 to June 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate assessing overall quality using AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting compliance using RIGHT (% of total 35 items); reviewer agreement was 98% and 96% respectively.ResultsThere were 59 relevant guidance documents (43 CPGs, 16 CSs), of which 20 used systematic reviews for evidence synthesis. The median overall quality was 54.0% (IQR 35.9–74.3) and the median overall reporting compliance was 60.9% (IQR 44.5–84.4). The correlation between quality and reporting was 0.9. Compared to CSs, CPGs had better quality (55.4% vs 44.2%; p = 0.032) and reporting (67.18% vs 44.5%; p = 0.005). Compared to subjective methods of evidence analysis, guidance documents that used systematic reviews had better quality (76.3% vs 51.4%; p = 0.001) and reporting (87.1% vs 59.4%; p = 0.001).ConclusionThe quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs in BC treatment were moderately strong. Systematic reviews should be used to improve the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs.

ACS Style

Marta Maes-Carballo; Luciano Mignini; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas; Khalid Saeed Khan. Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review. The Breast 2020, 53, 201 -211.

AMA Style

Marta Maes-Carballo, Luciano Mignini, Manuel Martín-Díaz, Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas, Khalid Saeed Khan. Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review. The Breast. 2020; 53 ():201-211.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marta Maes-Carballo; Luciano Mignini; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas; Khalid Saeed Khan. 2020. "Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: A systematic review." The Breast 53, no. : 201-211.

Review article
Published: 03 August 2020 in Health Expectations
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Background It is not clear whether clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are adequately promoting shared decision making (SDM). Objective To evaluate the recommendations about SDM in CPGs and CSs concerning breast cancer (BC) treatment. Search strategy Following protocol registration (Prospero no.: CRD42018106643), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2010 to December 2019. Inclusion criteria CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were selected whether published in a journal or in an online document. Data extraction and synthesis A 31‐item SDM quality assessment tool was developed and used to extract data in duplicate. Main results There were 167 relevant CPGs (139) and CSs (28); SDM was reported in only 40% of the studies. SDM was reported more often in recent publications after 2015 (42/101 (41.6 %) vs 46/66 (69.7 %), P = .0003) but less often in medical journal publications (44/101 (43.5 %) vs 17/66 (25.7 %), P = .009). In CPGs and CSs with SDM, only 8/66 (12%) met one‐fifth (6 of 31) of the quality items; only 14/66 (8%) provided clear and precise SDM recommendations. Discussion and conclusions SDM descriptions and recommendations in CPGs and CSs concerning BC treatment need improvement. SDM was more frequently reported in CPGs and CSs in recent years, but surprisingly it was less often covered in medical journals, a feature that needs attention.

ACS Style

Marta Maes‐Carballo; Isabel Muñoz‐Núñez; Manuel Martín‐Díaz; Luciano Mignini; Aurora Bueno‐Cavanillas; Khalid Saeed Khan. Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review. Health Expectations 2020, 23, 1045 -1064.

AMA Style

Marta Maes‐Carballo, Isabel Muñoz‐Núñez, Manuel Martín‐Díaz, Luciano Mignini, Aurora Bueno‐Cavanillas, Khalid Saeed Khan. Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review. Health Expectations. 2020; 23 (5):1045-1064.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marta Maes‐Carballo; Isabel Muñoz‐Núñez; Manuel Martín‐Díaz; Luciano Mignini; Aurora Bueno‐Cavanillas; Khalid Saeed Khan. 2020. "Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review." Health Expectations 23, no. 5: 1045-1064.

Review
Published: 01 December 2017 in Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Investigation of noncyclic mastalgia in women without signs or risk factors for cancer is controversial. An initial imaging strategy can diagnose breast cancer early, potentially leading to better treatment and survival. However, cancer diagnosis is very uncommon in these cases, and this approach can be harmful, as false positives or suspicion results will lead to unneeded interventions and follow-up. The purpose of this review is to analyse the trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences of initial imaging tests against clinical follow-up.We found seven relevant studies, all observational, with some methodological limitations and very low-quality evidence. They showed low breast cancer prevalence (around 1-2%, increasing with age), high sensitivity to rule out disease but moderate specificity to rule it in using mammography and echography, and lacked evidence on follow-up and final outcomes.There is a low prevalence of breast cancer in patients with painful breast with negative physical examination, and very little research to inform about the effect of performing or avoiding initial imaging test on outcomes of interest. With such limited evidence, only a weak recommendation to reinforce shared decision making about what should be done in the primary care setting can be made, with the backup of a specialized breast unit.

ACS Style

Manuel Martín-Díaz; Marta Maes-Carballo; Khalid Saeed Khan; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas. To image or not in noncyclic breast pain? A systematic review. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2017, 29, 404 -412.

AMA Style

Manuel Martín-Díaz, Marta Maes-Carballo, Khalid Saeed Khan, Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas. To image or not in noncyclic breast pain? A systematic review. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2017; 29 (6):404-412.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Manuel Martín-Díaz; Marta Maes-Carballo; Khalid Saeed Khan; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas. 2017. "To image or not in noncyclic breast pain? A systematic review." Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology 29, no. 6: 404-412.