Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20809364›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2011

Association of diagnostic work-up with subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program for false-positive cases.

Arnaud Seigneurin, C Exbrayat, J Labarère, P Delafosse, F Poncet, M Colonna

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Arnaud SeigneurinRegistre du Cancer de l'Isère, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble, BP 217, Pavillon E, 38043 Grenoble Cedex 9, France. aseigneurin@chu-grenoble.fr
C Exbrayat
J Labarère
P Delafosse
F Poncet
M Colonna

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study is to determine whether the likelihood of returning for routine breast cancer screening differed for false-positive cases depending on the diagnostic work-up. Using the original data from a French population-based breast cancer screening program, we compared the attendance rates at the subsequent round of screening for 16,946 and 1,127 participants who received negative (i.e., American College of Radiology, ACR, categories 1-2) and false-positive mammograms, respectively. False-positive mammograms were categorized ACR 0 (i.e., warranting additional imaging evaluation), 3 (i.e., warranting clinical and imaging follow-up), and 4-5 (i.e., warranting biopsy). We estimated the odds ratios of attendance at subsequent screening round using logistic regression, adjusting for age and history of previous mammography. The attendance rates at the subsequent screening round were 80.6% for women who received negative mammograms versus 69.6, 74.3, and 70.1% for women who received false-positive mammograms warranting additional imaging evaluation, clinical and imaging follow-up, or biopsy, respectively. In comparison to women who received negative mammograms, the corresponding adjusted odds ratios of returning for routine screening were 0.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.8], 0.8 (95% CI 0.6-0.9), and 0.6 (95% CI 0.4-0.8). No significant differences were found in odds ratios of attendance across ACR categories among women who received false-positive mammograms. Similar figures were observed for attending at least one of the two subsequent screening rounds. In conclusion, in comparison to women with normal or benign findings on index mammograms, false-positive cases warranting additional imaging evaluation, clinical and imaging follow-up, or biopsy had uniformly decreased odds of attending subsequent routine screening rounds.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerAgedAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleFranceHumansLogistic ModelsMammographyMiddle Aged

Identifiers

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.