Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20458026›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2010

Patient decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mary E Ropka, Jess Keim, John T Philbrick

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 114 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
114citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

114 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 226 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2016
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

54 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 1 institution in 1 country.

Mary E RopkaDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA. mer2e@virginia.edu
Jess Keim
John T Philbrick
Fox Chase Cancer Center · US

Funding

Facilitating Web-based Patient Decision Support for Hereditary Breast Cancer RiskR21NR009868 · NINR · FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER · PI DALY, MARY BERYL · 2008 to 2009
$477k
NINR NIH HHS 1R21 NR 009868-01A1NINR NIH HHS R21 NR009868
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWomen at high risk of breast cancer face the complex decision of whether to take tamoxifen or raloxifene for breast cancer chemoprevention. We investigated what is known about decisions of women regarding chemoprevention.

methodsUsing MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PSYCINFO, plus reviewing reference lists of relevant articles, in December 2009 we identified 13 studies that addressed patient decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention, were published in 1995 or later, were peer-reviewed primary clinical studies, and reported rates at which participants showed interest in (hypothetical uptake) or accepted (real uptake) chemoprevention medications.

resultsNine studies provided information about hypothetical breast cancer chemoprevention decisions (mean uptake rate, 24.7%) and five provided information about real decisions (mean uptake rate, 14.8%). The range of rates was wide, and each of the hypothetical uptake studies assessed interest differently. A logistic regression model found significant correlation with uptake of decision type (hypothetical versus real, odds ratio [OR] = 1.65; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.16), educational or decision support intervention (provided v not, OR = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.27), and cohort risk for breast cancer (high-risk v general population, OR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.75). Perceived vulnerability to breast cancer was consistently correlated with increased uptake, and concern for adverse effects was correlated with reduced uptake. All studies used a correlational/descriptive design, and most studies used convenience sampling strategies.

conclusionBreast cancer chemoprevention uptake rates are low and variation is wide. Hypothetical uptake rates are higher than real uptake, and interventions markedly reduce uptake. Research is needed that uses reproducible sampling methods and examines decision support strategies that lead to quality decisions.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAntineoplastic AgentsBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID20458026
PMCPMC2903338
OpenAlexW1973440153

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.