Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24756610›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2014

Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.

Anna N A Tosteson, Dennis G Fryback, Cristina S Hammond, Lucy G Hanna, Margaret R Grove, Mary Brown, Qianfei Wang, Karen Lindfors, Etta D Pisano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Systematic Literature Review of Health Utility Values in Breast Cancer.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Anna N A TostesonDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Dennis G FrybackDepartments of Population Sciences and Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Cristina S HammondDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Lucy G HannaCenter for Statistical Science, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island.
Margaret R GroveDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Mary BrownDepartment of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Qianfei WangDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Karen LindforsDepartment of Radiology, University of California at Davis.
Etta D PisanoDepartment of Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Funding

ARRA - ADOPT New Technologies for RDC/CDMSU01CA080098 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI SCHNALL, MITCHELL D. · 1999 to 2011
$182.7M
Project-006U10CA180820 · NCI · ECOG-ACRIN MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION · PI Peter J ODwyer, MITCHELL D. SCHNALL · 2014 to 2026
$167.6M
Statistics CoreU10CA180794 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI PAUL J CATALANO, CONSTANTINE A. GATSONIS · 2014 to 2026
$111.2M
Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
BIOSTATISTICS DATA MANAGEMENT CENTER FOR ACROINU01CA079778 · NCI · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI GATSONIS, CONSTANTINE A. · 1999 to 2011
$48.6M
Promoting personalized decisions for breast cancer screening for women AND theirU54CA163307 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI HAAS, JENNIFER S, ONEGA, TRACY · 2011 to 2017
$6.1M
Comparative Effectiveness of Advanced Imaging in CancerRC2CA148259 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI BLACK, WILLIAM C, HILLNER, BRUCE ELLIS · 2009 to 2009
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NCI NIH HHS RC2/UC2CA148259NCI NIH HHS U01 CA079778NCI NIH HHS U01 CA080098NCI NIH HHS U01CA79778NCI NIH HHS U01CA80098NCI NIH HHS U01CA80098-S1NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180794NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180820NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163307NCI NIH HHS U54CA163307PHS HHS U0179778-S1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceFalse-positive mammograms, a common occurrence in breast cancer screening programs, represent a potential screening harm that is currently being evaluated by the US Preventive Services Task Force.

objectiveTo measure the effect of false-positive mammograms on quality of life by measuring personal anxiety, health utility, and attitudes toward future screening. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsThe Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) quality-of-life substudy telephone survey was performed shortly after screening and 1 year later at 22 DMIST sites and included randomly selected DMIST participants with positive and negative mammograms. EXPOSURE: Mammogram requiring follow-up testing or referral without a cancer diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The 6-question short form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory state scale (STAI-6) and the EuroQol EQ-5D instrument with US scoring. Attitudes toward future screening as measured by women's self-report of future intention to undergo mammographic screening and willingness to travel and stay overnight to undergo a hypothetical new type of mammography that would identify as many cancers with half the false-positive results.

resultsAmong 1450 eligible women invited to participate, 1226 (84.6%) were enrolled, with follow-up interviews obtained in 1028 (83.8%). Anxiety was significantly higher for women with false-positive mammograms (STAI-6, 35.2 vs 32.7), but health utility scores did not differ and there were no significant differences between groups at 1 year. Future screening intentions differed by group (25.7% vs 14.2% more likely in false-positive vs negative groups); willingness to travel and stay overnight did not (9.9% vs 10.5% in false-positive vs negative groups). Future screening intention was significantly increased among women with false-positive mammograms (odds ratio, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.54-2.93), younger age (2.78; 1.5-5.0), and poorer health (1.63; 1.09-2.43). Women's anticipated high-level anxiety regarding future false-positive mammograms was associated with willingness to travel overnight (odds ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.28-2.95). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: False-positive mammograms were associated with increased short-term anxiety but not long-term anxiety, and there was no measurable health utility decrement. False-positive mammograms increased women's intention to undergo future breast cancer screening and did not increase their stated willingness to travel to avoid a false-positive result. Our finding of time-limited harm after false-positive screening mammograms is relevant for clinicians who counsel women on mammographic screening and for screening guideline development groups.

Indexed as

AgedAnxietyFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMammographyMiddle AgedQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID24756610
PMCPMC4071565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.