ArticleFamilial cancer2012
Self-reported mammography use following BRCA1/2 genetic testing may be overestimated.
Article in Familial cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-reported barriers to screening breast MRI among women at high risk for breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Lack of validity of self-reported mammography data.Family medicine and community health · 2019Article
- No evidence of excessive cancer screening in female noncarriers fromCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2017Article
- Do women change their breast cancer mammogram screening behaviour after BRCA1/2 testing?Familial cancer · 2017Article
- The validity of self-reported cancer screening history and the role of social disadvantage in Ontario, Canada.BMC public health · 2015Article
- Validity of self-reported genetic counseling and genetic testing use among breast cancer survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2013Article
- Accuracy of Self-Reported Screening Mammography Use: Examining Recall among Female Relatives from the Ontario Site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry.ISRN oncology · 2013Article
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
Adherence to mammographic screening recommendations following BRCA1/2 testing is generally assessed through self-reports. However, the validity of self-reported mammography by women who had undergone BRCA1/2 genetic testing is still unknown. This study aimed to assess the validity of self-reported mammography use in the past 12 months among women who had undergone BRCA1/2 testing. Using a self-administered questionnaire, 307 women who never had cancer were asked 1 year following BRCA1/2 test result disclosure whether they undergone a mammography in the past 12 months. For each participant, this information was compared to that provided by the Quebec Health Insurance Board administrative data set for mammography claims during the same period, here considered as the gold standard. Sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), predictive values, and Cohen's kappa (κ) were calculated. The robustness of these estimates was assessed using sensitivity analysis in which we varied the administrative data time lapses up to 18 months. Overall, the agreement between self-reports and administrative data was 88% (κ = 0.74). Among the 180 participants who had a mammography according to the administrative data, 172 adequately reported this information (Sn = 96%). Sp was moderate (76%), meaning that 24% of those who did not have a mammography reported one. Extending the time lapses to 18 months increased the Sp substantially (Sp = 90%). Self-report overestimates the use of mammography, mainly because women tend to minimize the elapsed time since their last mammography. Self-reports should be used cautiously to assess adherence to mammographic screening following BRCA1/2 testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22080962What 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.