ArticleFamilial cancer2014
A primary care audit of familial risk in patients with a personal history of breast cancer.
Article in Familial cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Time to rethink the capture and use of family history in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women, both in the UK and worldwide. A small proportion of women are at very high risk of breast cancer, having a particularly strong family history. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has advised that practitioners should not, in most instances, actively seek to identify women with a family history of breast cancer. An audit was undertaken at an urban primary care practice of 15,000 patients, using a paper-based, self-administered questionnaire sent to patients identified with a personal history of breast cancer. The aim of this audit was to determine whether using targeted screening of relatives of patients with breast cancer to identify familial cancer risk is worthwhile in primary care. Since these patients might already expected to have been risk assessed following their initial diagnosis, this audit acts as a quality improvement exercise. The audit used a validated family history questionnaire and risk assessment tool as a screening approach for identifying and grading familial risk in line with the NICE guidelines, to guide referral to the familial cancer screening service. The response rate to family history questionnaires was 54 % and the majority of patients responded positively to their practitioner seeking to identify familial cancer risks in their family. Of the 57 returned questionnaires, over a half (54 %) contained pedigrees with individuals eligible for referral. Patients and their relatives who are often registered with the practice welcome the discussion. An appropriate referral can therefore be made. The findings suggest a role for primary care practitioners in the identification of those at higher familial risk. However integrated systems and processes need designing to facilitate this work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25096803What 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.