Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12841854›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2003

Estimating the cumulative risk of false positive cancer screenings.

Stuart G Baker, Diane Erwin, Barnett S Kramer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Modelling the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test.Statistical methods in medical research · 2010
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stuart G BakerBiometry Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. sb16i@nih.gov
Diane Erwin
Barnett S Kramer
Information Management Services · USNational Cancer Institute · USOffice of Disease Prevention · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen evaluating cancer screening it is important to estimate the cumulative risk of false positives from periodic screening. Because the data typically come from studies in which the number of screenings varies by subject, estimation must take into account dropouts. A previous approach to estimate the probability of at least one false positive in n screenings unrealistically assumed that the probability of dropout does not depend on prior false positives.

methodBy redefining the random variables, we obviate the unrealistic dropout assumption. We also propose a relatively simple logistic regression and extend estimation to the expected number of false positives in n screenings.

resultsWe illustrate our methodology using data from women ages 40 to 64 who received up to four annual breast cancer screenings in the Health Insurance Program of Greater New York study, which began in 1963. Covariates were age, time since previous screening, screening number, and whether or not a previous false positive occurred. Defining a false positive as an unnecessary biopsy, the only statistically significant covariate was whether or not a previous false positive occurred. Because the effect of screening number was not statistically significant, extrapolation beyond 4 screenings was reasonable. The estimated mean number of unnecessary biopsies in 10 years per woman screened is.11 with 95% confidence interval of (.10,.12). Defining a false positive as an unnecessary work-up, all the covariates were statistically significant and the estimated mean number of unnecessary work-ups in 4 years per woman screened is.34 with 95% confidence interval (.32,.36).

conclusionUsing data from multiple cancer screenings with dropouts, and allowing dropout to depend on previous history of false positives, we propose a logistic regression model to estimate both the probability of at least one false positive and the expected number of false positives associated with n cancer screenings. The methodology can be used for both informed decision making at the individual level, as well as planning of health services.

Indexed as

AdultBiopsyBreast NeoplasmsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMiddle AgedNeoplasmsRiskSample SizeUnnecessary Procedures

Identifiers

PMID12841854
PMCPMC166156
OpenAlexW1757471436

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.