ArticleGynecologic oncology2012
Prophylactic oophorectomy rates in relation to a guideline update on referral to genetic counseling.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gynecological surgery in adulthood imparts cognitive and brain changes in rats: A focus on hysterectomy at short-, moderate-, and long-term intervals after surgery.Hormones and behavior · 2023Article
- Prophylactic bilateral Salpingo-oophorectomy and eventual development of endometrial cancer: Two individual case reports.Case reports in women's health · 2020Article
- Trends in BRCA Test Utilization in an Integrated Health System, 2005-2015.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2019Article
- Competing Risks for a Diagnosis of Invasive Breast Cancer.JAMA oncology · 2019Article
- Comparison between CaGene 5.1 and 6.0 for BRCA1/2 mutation prediction: a retrospective study of 150 BRCA1/2 genetic tests in 517 families with breast/ovarian cancer.Journal of human genetics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe sought to determine whether prophylactic oophorectomy rates changed after the introduction of a 2007 health plan clinical guideline recommending systematic referral to a genetic counselor for women with a personal or family history suggestive of an inherited susceptibility to breast/ovarian cancer.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of female members of Group Health, an integrated delivery system in Washington State. Subjects were women aged ≥ 35 years during 2004-2009 who reported a personal or family history consistent with an inherited susceptibility to breast/ovarian cancer. Personal and family history information was collected on a questionnaire completed when the women had a mammogram. We ascertained oophorectomies from automated claims data and determined whether surgeries were prophylactic by medical chart review. Rates were age-adjusted and age-adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using Poisson regression.
resultsProphylactic oophorectomy rates were relatively unchanged after compared to before the guideline change, 1.0 versus 0.8/1000 person-years, (IRR=1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-2.0), whereas bilateral oophorectomy rates for other indications decreased. Genetic counseling receipt rates doubled after the guideline change (95% CI: 1.7-2.4) from 5.1 to 10.2/1000 person-years. During the study, bilateral oophorectomy rates were appreciably greater in women who saw a genetic counselor compared to those who did not regardless of whether they received genetic testing as part of their counseling.
conclusionA doubling in genetic counseling receipt rates lends support to the idea that the guideline issuance contributed to sustained rates of prophylactic oophorectomies in more recent years.
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.