ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2013
Factors influencing time to diagnosis after abnormal mammography in diverse women.
Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2018Pooled it
- Optimizing healthcare supply chain capacity planning during disasters using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Multilevel contributors to racial and ethnic inequities in the resolution of abnormal mammography results.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
- Research Priorities for Interventions to Address Health Disparities in Lung Nodule Management: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2023Article
- Addressing Disparities Related to Access of Multimodality Breast Imaging Services Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Academic radiology · 2022Review
- Delays in Follow-up Care for Abnormal Mammograms in Mobile Mammography Versus Fixed-Clinic Patients.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Racial Disparities in Diagnostic Delay Among Women With Breast Cancer.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2021Article
- Article
- Factors Associated With Optimal Follow-up in Women With BI-RADS 3 Breast Findings.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2020Article
- Article
- Mammography facilities serving vulnerable women have longer follow-up times.Health services research · 2019Article
- Communication Practices of Mammography Facilities and Timely Follow-up of a Screening Mammogram with a BI-RADS 0 Assessment.Academic radiology · 2018Article
- Article
- Conversations about Abnormal Mammograms on Distress and Timely Follow-up Across Ethnicity.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2017Article
- Follow-Up of Abnormal Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening by Race/Ethnicity.American journal of preventive medicine · 2016Article
- Variation in Screening Abnormality Rates and Follow-Up of Breast, Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening within the PROSPR Consortium.Journal of general internal medicine · 2016Article
- Impact of Age and Comorbidity on Cervical and Breast Cancer Literacy of African Americans, Latina, and Arab Women.The Nursing clinics of North America · 2015Review
- Follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests: considering the multilevel context of care.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2014Review
- Perceived discrimination is associated with reduced breast and cervical cancer screening: the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN).Journal of women's health (2002) · 2014Article
- Time to definitive diagnosis of breast cancer in Latina and non-Hispanic white women: the six cities study.SpringerPlus · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAbnormal mammograms are common, and the risk of false positives is high. We surveyed women in order to understand the factors influencing the efficiency of the evaluation of an abnormal mammogram.
methodsWomen aged 40-80 years, identified from lists with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classifications of 0, 3, 4, or 5, were surveyed. Telephone surveys asked about the process of evaluation, and medical records were reviewed for tests and timing of evaluation.
resultsIn this study, 970 women were surveyed, and 951 had chart reviews. Overall, 36% were college graduates, 68% were members of a group model health plan, 18% were Latinas, 25% were African Americans, 15% were Asian, and 43% were white. Of the 352 women who underwent biopsies, 151 were diagnosed with cancer (93 invasive). Median time to diagnosis was 183 days for BIRADS 3 compared to 29 days for BIRADS 4/5 and 27 days for BIRADS 0. At 60 days, 84% of BIRADS 4/5 women had a diagnosis. Being African American (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.97, p=0.03), income < $10,000 (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.98, p<0.04), perceived discrimination (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.09-0.52, p<0.001), not fully understanding the results of the index mammogram (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.75, p=0.001), and being notified by letter (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.90, p=0.01) or telephone (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42-0.92, p=0.02) rather than in person were all associated with significant delays in diagnosis.
conclusionsEvaluation of BIRADS 0, 4, or 5 abnormal mammograms was completed in most women within the recommended 60 days. Even within effective systems, correctible communication factors may adversely affect time to diagnosis.
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.