Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23345056›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2013

Comparison of the screening practices of unaffected noncarriers under 40 and between 40 and 49 in BRCA1/2 families.

Christelle Duprez, Véronique Christophe, Isabelle Milhabet, Aurélie Krzeminski, Claude Adenis, Pascaline Berthet, Jean-Philippe Peyrat, Philippe Vennin

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Clinical follow-up and breast and ovarian cancer screening of true BRCA1/2 noncarriers: a qualitative investigation.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2016
    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

8 authors.

Christelle DuprezURECA EA 1059, Université Lille Nord de France, Université de Lille 3, Villeneuve d'Ascq, France. christelle.duprez@univ-lille3.fr
Véronique Christophe
Isabelle Milhabet
Aurélie Krzeminski
Claude Adenis
Pascaline Berthet
Jean-Philippe Peyrat
Philippe Vennin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to 1) compare the cancer screening practices of unaffected noncarrier women under 40 and those aged 40 to 49, following the age-based medical screening guidelines, and 2) consider the way the patients justified their practices of screening or over-screening. For this study, 131 unaffected noncarriers-77 women under age 40 and 54 between 40 and 49, all belonging to a BRCA1/2 family-responded to a questionnaire on breast or ovarian cancer screenings they had undergone since receiving their negative genetic test results, their motives for seeking these screenings, and their intentions to pursue these screenings in the future. Unaffected noncarriers under age 40 admitted practices that could be qualified as over-screening. Apart from mammogram and breast ultrasounds, which the women under 40 reported seeking less often, these women's screening practices were comparable to those of women between 40 and 49. Cancer prevention and a family history of cancer were the two most frequently cited justifications for pursuing these screenings. We suggest that health care professionals discuss with women under 50 the ineffectiveness of breast and ovarian cancer screenings so that they will adapt their practices to conform to medical guidelines and limit their exposure to the potentially negative impacts of early cancer screening.

Indexed as

Genes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2AdultBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOvarian Neoplasms

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.