ArticleBritish journal of cancer2009
Measuring, and identifying predictors of women's perceptions of three types of breast cancer risk: population risk, absolute risk and comparative risk.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Breast Cancer Risk Perceptions among Relatives of Women with Uninformative Negative BRCA1/2 Test Results: The Moderating Effect of the Amount of Shared Information.Journal of genetic counseling · 2016Article
- Local Therapy Decision-Making and Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Young Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2015Article
- Perceptions, knowledge, and satisfaction with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among young women with breast cancer: a cross-sectional survey.Annals of internal medicine · 2013Article
- Patient opinions on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A patient-driven discussion in need of tuning?Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although a key function of cancer genetics services is to provide risk information, to date there has been little consistency in the way in which breast cancer risk perception has been measured. The aims of the study were to measure estimates of (i) population risk, (ii) absolute risk and (iii) comparative risk of developing breast cancer for Ashkenazi Jewish women, and to determine predictors of breast cancer risk perception. Of 152 women, 107 (70%) completed all questions. The mean (s.d.) estimates for population risk, absolute risk and comparative risk were 22.7% (15.9), 31.8% (20.6) and 1.9-fold (1.9), respectively. Most women overestimated population risk. Women at population risk generally overestimated the population risk and their own absolute risk, yet understood they are at the same risk as the population. Those with a family history understood that they are at increased risk, but underestimated the extent to which their familial risk is increased. Anxiety, high estimation of population risk and lesser family history predicted overestimation of absolute risk, whereas high estimation of population risk and a strong family history predicted underestimation of comparative risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.