Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22438505›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical screening2012

Influence of false-positive mammography results on subsequent screening: do physician recommendations buffer negative effects?

Jessica T DeFrank, Barbara K Rimer, J Michael Bowling, Jo Anne Earp, Erica S Breslau, Noel T Brewer

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical screening, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram on Subsequent Screening Behavior and Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2017
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Perspectives on mammography after receipt of secondary screening owing to a false positive.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jessica T DeFrankGillings School of Global Public Health, 325 Rosenau Hall CB# 7440, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA. jessica_defrank@unc.edu
Barbara K Rimer
J Michael Bowling
Jo Anne Earp
Erica S Breslau
Noel T Brewer
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USNational Cancer Institute · USUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center

Funding

Cancer Training GrantR25CA116339 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BASCH, ETHAN M., REEVE, BRYCE B · 2008 to 2017
$4.0M
FINDING THE M.I.N.C. FOR MAMMOGRAPHY MAINTENANCER01CA105786 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI RIMER, BARBARA K. · 2003 to 2009
$3.7M
Cancer Care Quality Training ProgramT32CA116339 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ETHAN M. BASCH, Stephanie Brooke Wheeler · 2018 to 2026
$3.0M
NCI NIH HHS 5R01CA105786NCI NIH HHS CA116339NCI NIH HHS R01 CA105786NCI NIH HHS R25 CA116339NCI NIH HHS T32 CA116339
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCancer screening guidelines often include discussion about the unintended negative consequences of routine screening. This prospective study examined effects of false-positive mammography results on women's adherence to subsequent breast cancer screening and psychological well-being. We also assessed whether barriers to screening exacerbated the effects of false-positive results.

methodsWe conducted secondary analyses of data from telephone interviews and medical claims records for 2406 insured women. The primary outcome was adherence to screening guidelines, defined as adherent (10-14 months), delayed (15-34 months), or no subsequent mammogram on record.

resultsAbout 8% of women reported that their most recent screening mammograms produced false-positive results. In the absence of self-reported advice from their physicians to be screened, women were more likely to have no subsequent mammograms on record if they received false-positive results than if they received normal results (18% vs. 7%, OR = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.30, 7.70). Receipt of false-positive results was not associated with this outcome for women who said their physicians had advised regular screening in the past year (7% vs. 10%, OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.38, 1.45). False-positive results were associated with greater breast cancer worry (P < .01), thinking more about the benefits of screening (P < .001), and belief that abnormal test results do not mean women have cancer (P < .01), regardless of physicians' screening recommendations.

conclusionFalse-positive mammography results, coupled with reports that women's physicians did not advise regular screening, could lead to non-adherence to future screening. Abnormal mammograms that do not result in cancer diagnoses are opportunities for physicians to stress the importance of regular screening.

Indexed as

Physician's RoleAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelAttitude to HealthBreast NeoplasmsCarcinomaDelayed DiagnosisDirective CounselingFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePatient Dropouts

Identifiers

PMID22438505
PMCPMC5835966
OpenAlexW2140543625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.