Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18254010›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008

Interventions for relieving the pain and discomfort of screening mammography.

D Miller, V Livingstone, P Herbison

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04009278 (Self-compression Mammography in Clinical Practice), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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.

NCT04009278 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Self-compression Mammography in Clinical Practice: A Randomized Clinical Trial Compared to Standard Compression Mammography

TypeinterventionalSponsorAzienda USL Reggio Emilia - IRCCSRan2018 to 2020Enrolled502ConditionsMammography, Breast CancerArmsSelf compression arm
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

D MillerDunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Women's and Children's Health, PO Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand. dawn.miller@stonebow.otago.ac.nz
V Livingstone
P Herbison
University of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe pain of mammography is recognised as a significant deterrent for women considering this examination, and may affect participation in breast screening.

objectivesTo review interventions to reduce or relieve the pain and discomfort of screening mammography. SEARCH STRATEGY: For this update, the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register was searched on the 18th May 2006. Other databases searched were MEDLINE (1966 to November 2006), CINAHL (1982 to December 2006), EMBASE (1988 to 2006) and reference lists of articles. We also searched Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com, accessed September 2007) and the UK National Research Register (www.update-software.com/national/, accessed September 2007) for ongoing and completed research projects. Researchers in the field were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials with a comparison group were considered. Studies had to include assessment of pain or discomfort and, if the intervention could have impacted on the quality of the mammograms, an assessment of image quality was also required. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (DM and VL) reviewed identified studies to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria. Each study was reviewed for quality, including concealment and generation of allocation sequence, comparability between groups at baseline, inclusion of all randomised participants in analysis and blinding after allocation. Data extraction was performed by these two authors. MAIN

resultsSeven RCTs, involving 1671 women were identified for inclusion. The review found that giving women information about the procedure prior to the mammogram may reduce pain and discomfort. Increasing women's control over breast compression could reduce pain experienced during the procedure, though mammogram image quality was only maintained if the technologist controlled the first compression. If the technologist reduced compression force of the mammogram, discomfort experienced was unchanged. The use of breast cushions reduced pain of mammography; however, image quality was impaired in 2% of women in the intervention group. Acetoaminophen as a premedication did not affect discomfort of mammography. Differences in interventions, and inconsistency in measures, validation of pain scales, and in assessment of mammogram quality, mean that results of these studies cannot be combined. All results are based on single studies. Further research is required. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCurrently there are very few proven interventions to reduce pain and discomfort of screening mammography, especially procedures that can be readily introduced to screening programmes. With mammography continuing as the preferred method for breast screening, more research on such interventions is needed.

Indexed as

AcetaminophenAnalgesics, Non-NarcoticFemaleHumansMammographyPainPatient Education as TopicPremedicationPressureQuality ControlRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAcetaminophenAnalgesics, Non-Narcotic

Identifiers

PMID18254010
PMCPMC8989268
OpenAlexW2171236196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.