Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12084699›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health2002

Mammography screening and differences in stage of disease by race/ethnicity.

Jillian Jacobellis, Gary Cutter

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Obesity and mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2009
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Follow-up and timeliness after an abnormal cancer screening among underserved, urban women in a patient navigation program.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2012
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jillian JacobellisColorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, 80246-1530, USA.jillian.jacobellis@state.co.us
Gary Cutter

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe examined the effect of routine screening on breast cancer staging by race/ethnicity.

methodsWe used a 1990 to 1998 mammography database (N = 5182) of metropolitan Denver, Colo, women to examine each racial/ethnic cohort's incident cancer cases (n = 1902) and tumor stage distribution given similar patterns of routine screening use.

resultsRegardless of race/ethnicity, women participating in routine screenings had earlier-stage disease by 5 to 13 percentage points. After control for possible confounding factors, White women were more likely to have early-stage disease compared with Black and Hispanic women.

conclusionsLack of screening coverage in certain racial/ethnic populations has often been cited as a reason for tumor stage differences at detection. In this study, correcting for screening did not completely reduce stage differentials among Black and Hispanic women.

Indexed as

Outcome and Process Assessment, Health CareWomen's HealthAdultBlack or African AmericanBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesColoradoDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHispanic or LatinoHumansIncidenceMammographyMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingOdds Ratio

Identifiers

PMID12084699
PMCPMC1447205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.