Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26078275›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical screening2016

Availability of Advanced Breast Imaging at Screening Facilities Serving Vulnerable Populations.

Christoph I Lee, Andy Bogart, Jessica C Germino, L Elizabeth Goldman, Rebecca A Hubbard, Jennifer S Haas, Deirdre A Hill, Anna Na Tosteson, Jennifer A Alford-Teaster, Wendy B DeMartini and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical screening, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Christoph I LeeDept of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine; 825 Eastlake Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98109 Dept of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health; 825 Eastlake Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98109 stophlee@uw.edu.
Andy BogartGroup Health Research Institute; 1730 Minor Avenue #1600, Seattle, WA, 98101.
Jessica C GerminoDept of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine; 825 Eastlake Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98109.
L Elizabeth GoldmanDept of Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine; 1001 Potrero Ave, Box 1364, San Francisco, CA 94110.
Rebecca A HubbardDept of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania; 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Jennifer S HaasDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital; Dept of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Dana Farber Harvard Cancer Institute; Dept of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard School of Public Health; 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02120.
Deirdre A HillDept of Internal Medicine, Cancer Research and Treatment Center, University of New Mexico; 1201 Camino de Salud NE, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87102.
Anna Na TostesonDepts of Medicine and Community & Family Medicine, Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine; One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756.
Jennifer A Alford-TeasterDepts of Medicine and Community & Family Medicine, Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine; One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756.
Wendy B DeMartiniDept of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health; 600 Highland Avenue, Madison WI 53792.
Constance D LehmanDept of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine; 825 Eastlake Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98109.
Tracy L OnegaDepts of Medicine and Community & Family Medicine, Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine; One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756.
University of Washington · USDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USHighland Community College - Illinois · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USLebanon VA Medical Center · USPotrero Medical (United States) · USUniversity of New Mexico · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Diana L Miglioretti · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
Comparative effectiveness of breast imaging strategies in community practiceRC2CA148577 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI BUIST, DIANA SM, GELLER, BERTA M · 2009 to 2009
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201100031CNCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P01CA154292NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NCI NIH HHS RC2 CA148577NCI NIH HHS RC2CA148577
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAmong vulnerable women, unequal access to advanced breast imaging modalities beyond screening mammography may lead to delays in cancer diagnosis and unfavourable outcomes. We aimed to compare on-site availability of advanced breast imaging services (ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], and image-guided biopsy) between imaging facilities serving vulnerable patient populations and those serving non-vulnerable populations.

setting73 imaging facilities across five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium regional registries in the United States during 2011 and 2012.

methodsWe examined facility and patient characteristics across a large, national sample of imaging facilities and patients served. We characterized facilities as serving vulnerable populations based on the proportion of mammograms performed on women with lower educational attainment, lower median income, racial/ethnic minority status, and rural residence.We performed multivariable logistic regression to determine relative risks of on-site availability of advanced imaging at facilities serving vulnerable women versus facilities serving non-vulnerable women.

resultsFacilities serving vulnerable populations were as likely (Relative risk [RR] for MRI = 0.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.42, 1.19; RR for MRI-guided biopsy = 1.07 [0.61, 1.90]; RR for stereotactic biopsy = 1.18 [0.75, 1.85]) or more likely (RR for ultrasound = 1.38 [95% CI 1.09, 1.74]; RR for ultrasound-guided biopsy = 1.67 [1.30, 2.14]) to offer advanced breast imaging services as those serving non-vulnerable populations.

conclusionsAdvanced breast imaging services are physically available on-site for vulnerable women in the United States, but it is unknown whether factors such as insurance coverage or out-of-pocket costs might limit their use.

Indexed as

RegistriesVulnerable PopulationsBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEducational StatusEthnicityFemaleHealth ExpendituresHealth FacilitiesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansImage-Guided BiopsyLogistic ModelsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyMinority Groupsaccessadvanced breast imagingbreast cancerdisparitiesscreening mammography

Identifiers

PMID26078275
PMCPMC4679713
OpenAlexW2310614226

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.