ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2003
A Prospective Comparison Study of Different Methods of Gathering Self-Reported Family History Information for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Family history tools for primary care: A systematic review.The European journal of general practice · 2022Pooled it
- Leveraging Health Information Technology to Collect Family Cancer History: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2021Pooled it
- Quality indicators for the referral process from primary to specialised mental health care: an explorative study in accordance with the RAND appropriateness method.BMC health services research · 2017Pooled it
- Applying theory to characterize impediments to dissemination of community-facing family health history tools: a review of the literature.Journal of community genetics · 2020Review
- What characterizes cancer family history collection tools? A critical literature review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Review
- Literacy assessment of family health history tools for public health prevention.Public health genomics · 2011Article
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
Currently there is much debate regarding the ability of mathematical models incorporating epidemiological information or mutation-based risk algorithms to accurately predict a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. Without access to accurate family history information these models have limited use. This study compares different methods of gathering family history information and the impact on subsequent risk assessment. These methods were compared to the "gold standard" interview with a trained genetics' professional. The amount and accuracy of information provided by primary care doctors' letters was found to be poor and better information was obtained by sending a postal questionnaire directly to the patient. Because of the high number of low-risk women referred to clinic a questionnaire (the FCAT) was designed to provide reassurance and piloted as part of this study. This paper highlights the importance of using appropriate methods to gather the family history information. It presents evidence for the importance of a skilled assessor and the need to allow time for women to discuss the importance of this information with their family.
Identifiers
26140846What 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.