ArticleCurrent breast cancer reports2012
Tamoxifen vs Raloxifene vs Exemestane for Chemoprevention.
Article in Current breast cancer reports, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2016Pooled it
- Novel Treatment Strategies for Hormone Receptor (HR)-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Dynamic Changes of Convolutional Neural Network-based Mammographic Breast Cancer Risk Score Among Women Undergoing Chemoprevention Treatment.Clinical breast cancer · 2021Article
- Decision making for breast cancer prevention among women at elevated risk.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2017Review
- Uptake of exemestane chemoprevention in postmenopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2016Article
- Synthesis and anti-breast cancer evaluation of novel N-(guanidinyl)benzenesulfonamides.International journal of molecular sciences · 2014Article
- Breast Cancer Chemoprevention among High-risk Women and those with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.The breast journalArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical trial data on selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have demonstrated reduced breast cancer incidence in the prevention setting among high-risk women. We conducted an extensive review of clinical trials and recent published reports of barriers to uptake of breast cancer chemoprevention, to provide health care professionals with information to improve decision-making regarding chemoprevention. Despite the positive results of these trials, uptake of chemoprevention has been low due to barriers in identifying high-risk women, lack of understanding of risks and benefits, as well as concerns about side effects. Interventions designed to increase uptake have met with limited success. Clinicians can support women in informed decision-making about SERMs and AIs by effectively communicating breast cancer risk and enhancing knowledge about the risks and benefits of chemoprevention. Promoting uptake and adherence to chemoprevention holds promise for reducing the public health burden of this disease.
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.