Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22962858›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2012

Cost-effectiveness of a tailored intervention designed to increase breast cancer screening among a non-adherent population: a randomized controlled trial.

Yoshiki Ishikawa, Kei Hirai, Hiroshi Saito, Jun Fukuyoshi, Akio Yonekura, Kazuhiro Harada, Aiko Seki, Daisuke Shibuya, Yosikazu Nakamura

Erratum issuedAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Yoshiki IshikawaDepartment of Public Health, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, Japan.
Kei Hirai
Hiroshi Saito
Jun Fukuyoshi
Akio Yonekura
Kazuhiro Harada
Aiko Seki
Daisuke Shibuya
Yosikazu Nakamura

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough the percentage of women who initiate breast cancer screening is rising, the rate of continued adherence is poor. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a tailored print intervention compared with a non-tailored print intervention for increasing the breast cancer screening rate among a non-adherent population.

methodsIn total, 1859 participants aged 51-59 years (except those aged 55 years) were recruited from a Japanese urban community setting. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a tailored print reminder (tailored intervention group) or non-tailored print reminder (non-tailored intervention group). The primary outcome was improvement in the breast cancer screening rate. The screening rates and cost-effectiveness were examined for each treatment group (tailored vs. non-tailored) and each intervention subgroup during a follow-up period of five months. All analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle.

resultsThe number of women who underwent a screening mammogram following the reminder was 277 (19.9%) in the tailored reminder group and 27 (5.8%) in the non-tailored reminder group. A logistic regression model revealed that the odds of a woman who received a tailored print reminder undergoing mammography was 4.02 times those of a women who had received a non-tailored print reminder (95% confidence interval, 2.67-6.06). The cost of one mammography screening increase was 2,544 JPY or 30 USD in the tailored intervention group and 4,366 JPY or 52 USD in the non-tailored intervention group.

conclusionsProviding a tailored print reminder was an effective and cost-effective strategy for improving breast cancer screening rates among non-adherent women.

Indexed as

Urban PopulationBreast NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth PromotionHumansJapanMammographyMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID22962858
PMCPMC3495210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.