ArticleCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2012
False-positive screening mammograms and biopsies among women participating in a Canadian provincial breast screening program.
Article in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breast effects of oral, combined 17β-estradiol, and progesterone capsules in menopausal women: a randomized controlled trial.Menopause (New York, N.Y.) · 2020Trial
- The OncoSim-Breast Cancer Microsimulation Model.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice - a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Article
- Quality of the screening process: An overlooked critical factor and an essential component of shared decision making about screening.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Article
- Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?The British journal of radiology · 2016Review
- Controversies on Mammography Screening in the World and Bahceşehir Population-Based Organized Mammography Screening Project in Turkey.The journal of breast health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMammography screening results in false positives that cause anxiety and utilize scarce medical resources for their resolution. Determination of screening recommendations requires knowledge of the population risk of false positives.
methodsData were extracted from the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia and analyzed to determine the influence of personal factors including age, ethnic group and screening history, and the centre where screening was performed, on the likelihood a new screen would result in a false positive and whether a biopsy was required. The resulting probabilities were combined to provide values for lifetime screening algorithms.
resultsAge, screen sequence number, history of previous abnormal screens and centre where screening was performed were significantly related to the likelihood a new screen would be a false positive. British Columbia women screened biennially between the ages of 50 and 69 have a projected 41% chance of a false-positive screen and a 5.6% risk of a related biopsy, with the best performing centres having rates of 26% and 3%, respectively.
interpretationModel projections for BC overall are comparable to other North American estimates. Estimates varied depending upon screening centre attended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23618020PMC6975198What 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.