ArticleAnnals of epidemiology2013
Self-reported family history of leiomyoma: not a reliable marker of high risk.
Article in Annals of epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Family History and Uterine Fibroid Development in Black and African American Women.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Immunohistochemical Profile of Uterine Leiomyoma With Bizarre Nuclei; Comparison With Conventional Leiomyoma, Smooth Muscle Tumors of Uncertain Malignant Potential and Leiomyosarcoma.Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin · 2015Article
- Uterine fibroids: pathogenesis and interactions with endometrium and endomyometrial junction.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2013Review
- The Appropriate Criteria in Patients Selection for Myomectomy in the Era of Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Case Report.Journal of reproduction & infertilityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo examine the importance of self-reported family history of uterine leiomyoma (fibroids) as a marker of risk.
methodsWomen, aged 35 to 49, were randomly selected from the membership of a large, urban health plan. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire about family history of fibroids. Ultrasound screening for fibroids followed, regardless of whether participants had been previously diagnosed (660 black, 412 white). Data for each ethnic group were analyzed separately using Poisson regression.
resultsIn both ethnic groups, women who reported a family history of fibroids had an elevated risk of fibroids compared with those without family history. However, no elevated risk was apparent for cases who did not know they had fibroids when they reported the family history information.
conclusionsMany women may first learn about their family history of fibroids when discussing their own clinical diagnosis with family members. Such bias would invalidate self-reported family history as a predictor of fibroid risk. As new pharmacologic treatments for fibroids are developed, women at high risk of fibroids would benefit from early screening and pharmacologic treatment to delay development of large fibroids and reduce the need for invasive treatments. Self-reported family history is not useful for identifying high-risk women.
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.