ArticleJournal of comparative effectiveness research2015
Predictors of preoperative MRI for breast cancer: differences by data source.
Article in Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2015. 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.
- Preoperative Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Use by Breast Density and Family History of Breast Cancer.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimInvestigate how the results of predictive models of preoperative MRI for breast cancer change based on available data. MATERIALS &
methodsA total of 1919 insured women aged ≥18 with stage 0-III breast cancer diagnosed 2002-2009. Four models were compared using nested multivariable logistic, backwards stepwise regression; model fit was assessed via area under the curve (AUC), R
resultsMRI recipients (n = 245) were more recently diagnosed, younger, less comorbid, with higher stage disease. Significant variables included: Model 1/Claims (AUC = 0.76, R
conclusionClinical variables accounted for little of the observed variability compared with claims data.
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.