ArticleEuropean radiology2012
Impact of intermediate mammography assessment on the likelihood of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programmes.
Article in European radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBreast cancer screening is offered to 100% of the target population in Spain and intermediate mammograms (IMs) are sometimes indicated. This study was aimed at analysing the frequency of IMs, the factors determining their recommendation, and their impact on the risk of false-positive results and the detection rate.
methodsData from 3,471,307 mammograms from Spanish breast cancer screening programmes were included.
results3.36% of the mammograms were IMs. The factors associated with the use of IMs were age, initial screening, previous invasive tests, a familial history of breast cancer and use of hormone replacement therapy. In screening episodes with an IM, the probability of a false-positive result was 13.74% (95% CI: 13.43-14.05), almost double that in episodes without IMs (6.02%, 95% CI 5.99-6.05). In young women with previous invasive procedures, a familial history of breast cancer or hormone replacement therapy use who were undergoing their initial screen, this probability was lower when IMs were performed. IMs always increased the detection rate.
conclusionsThe factors prompting IMs should be characterised so that radiologists can systematise their recommendations according to the presence of the factors maximising the benefits and minimising the adverse effects of this procedure. KEY POINTS: Intermediate mammograms in breast screening offer potential benefits but also disadvantages. Intermediate mammograms increase the false-positive rate except in specific groups. Intermediate mammograms reduce the false-positive rate in younger women and initial screens. Intermediate mammograms also reduce false-positive results in women with personal risk factors. Intermediate mammograms increase cancer detection mainly in women without risk factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21901564What 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.