ArticleMedical care2012
Facility characteristics do not explain higher false-positive rates in diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.
Article in Medical care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Availability of Advanced Breast Imaging at Screening Facilities Serving Vulnerable Populations.Journal of medical screening · 2016Article
- Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).Medical care · 2015Article
- Do mammographic technologists affect radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretative performance?AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2015Article
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
backgroundFacilities serving vulnerable women have higher false-positive rates for diagnostic mammography than facilities serving nonvulnerable women. False positives lead to anxiety, unnecessary biopsies, and higher costs.
objectiveExamine whether availability of on-site breast ultrasound or biopsy services, academic medical center affiliation, or profit status explains differences in false-positive rates.
designWe examined 78,733 diagnostic mammograms performed to evaluate breast problems at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities from 1999 to 2005. We used logistic-normal mixed effects regression to determine if adjusting for facility characteristics accounts for observed differences in false-positive rates. MEASURES: Facilities were characterized as serving vulnerable women based on the proportion of mammograms performed on racial/ethnic minorities, women with lower educational attainment, limited household income, or rural residence.
resultsAlthough the availability of on-site ultrasound and biopsy services was associated with greater odds of a false positive in most models [odds ratios (OR) ranging from 1.24 to 1.88; P<0.05], adjustment for these services did not attenuate the association between vulnerability and false-positive rates. Estimated ORs for the effect of vulnerability indexes on false-positive rates unadjusted for facility services were: lower educational attainment [OR 1.33; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.03-1.74]; racial/ethnic minority status (OR 1.33; 95% CI, 0.98-1.80); rural residence (OR 1.56; 95% CI, 1.26-1.92); limited household income (OR 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.73). After adjustment, estimates remained relatively unchanged.
conclusionsOn-site diagnostic service availability may contribute to unnecessary biopsies, but does not explain the higher diagnostic mammography false-positive rates at facilities serving vulnerable women.
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.