Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26208331›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Association between the Adherence to the International Guidelines for Cancer Prevention and Mammographic Density.

Adela Castelló, Leandro Prieto, María Ederra, Dolores Salas-Trejo, Carmen Vidal, Carmen Sánchez-Contador, Carmen Santamariña, Carmen Pedraz, Pilar Moreo, Nuria Aragonés and 5 more

Abstract readClinical StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

15 authors.

Adela CastellóCancer Epidemiology Unit, National Center for Epidemiology, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBERESP), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Cancer Epidemiology Research Group, Oncology and Hematology Area, IIS Puerta de Hierro (IDIPHIM), Madrid, Spain.
Leandro PrietoCancer Epidemiology Unit, National Center for Epidemiology, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
María EderraNavarre Breast Cancer Screening Program, Public Health Institute, Pamplona, Spain.
Dolores Salas-TrejoValencian Breast Cancer Screening Program, General Directorate of Public Health, Valencia, Spain.
Carmen VidalCancer Prevention and Control Unit, Catalonian Institute of Oncology (ICO. Barcelona, Spain.
Carmen Sánchez-ContadorBalearic Islands Breast Cancer Screening Program, Regional Authority for Health & Consumer Affairs, Palma de Mallorca, Islas Baleares.
Carmen SantamariñaGalician Breast Cancer Screening Program, Galician Regional Health Authority, A Coruña, Spain.
Carmen PedrazCastile-León Breast Cancer Screening Program, General Directorate of Public Health, Burgos, Spain.
Pilar MoreoAragón Breast Cancer Screening Program, Aragon Health Service, Zaragoza, Spain.
Nuria AragonésCancer Epidemiology Unit, National Center for Epidemiology, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBERESP), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Cancer Epidemiology Research Group, Oncology and Hematology Area, IIS Puerta de Hierro (IDIPHIM), Madrid, Spain.
Beatriz Pérez-GómezCancer Epidemiology Unit, National Center for Epidemiology, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBERESP), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Cancer Epidemiology Research Group, Oncology and Hematology Area, IIS Puerta de Hierro (IDIPHIM), Madrid, Spain.
Virginia LopeCancer Epidemiology Unit, National Center for Epidemiology, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBERESP), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Cancer Epidemiology Research Group, Oncology and Hematology Area, IIS Puerta de Hierro (IDIPHIM), Madrid, Spain.
Jesús VioqueConsortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBERESP), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Universidad Miguel Hernandez, Sant Joan D'Alacant, Spain.
Marina PollánCancer Epidemiology Unit, National Center for Epidemiology, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public Health (CIBERESP), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Cancer Epidemiology Research Group, Oncology and Hematology Area, IIS Puerta de Hierro (IDIPHIM), Madrid, Spain.
DDM-Spain research group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMammographic density (MD) is considered a strong predictor of Breast Cancer (BC). The objective of the present study is to explore the association between MD and the compliance with the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) recommendations for cancer prevention.

methodsData of 3584 women attending screening from a population-based multicenter cross-sectional study (DDM-Spain) collected from October 7, 2007 through July 14, 2008, was used to calculate a score that measures the level of compliance with the WCRF/AICR recommendations: R1)Maintain adequate body weight; R2)Be physically active; 3R)Limit the intake of high density foods; R4)Eat mostly plant foods; R5)Limit the intake of animal foods; R6)Limit alcohol intake; R7)Limit salt and salt preserved food intake; R8)Meet nutritional needs through diet. The association between the score and MD (assessed by a single radiologist using a semi-quantitative scale) was evaluated using ordinal logistic models with random center-specific intercepts adjusted for the main determinants of MD. Stratified analyses by menopausal status and smoking status were also carried out.

resultsA higher compliance with the WCRF/AICR recommendations was associated with lower MD (OR1-unit increase = 0.93 95%CI:0.86;0.99). The association was stronger in postmenopausal women (OR = 0.91 95%CI:0.84;0.99) and nonsmokers (OR = 0.87;95%CI:0.80;0.96 for nonsmokers, OR = 1.01 95%CI:0.91;1.12 for smokers, P-interaction = 0.042). Among nonsmokers, maintaining adequate body weight (OR = 0.81 95%CI:0.65;1.01), practicing physical activity (OR = 0.68 95%CI:0.48;0.96) and moderating the intake of high-density foods (OR = 0.58 95%CI:0.40;0.86) and alcoholic beverages (OR = 0.76 95%CI:0.55;1.05) were the recommendations showing the strongest associations with MD.

conclusionspostmenopausal women and non-smokers with greater compliance with the WCRF/AICR guidelines have lower MD. These results may provide guidance to design specific recommendations for screening attendants with high MD and therefore at higher risk of developing BC.

Indexed as

Breast DensityBreast NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMammary Glands, HumanMass ScreeningPatient CompliancePostmenopauseRisk FactorsSpain

Identifiers

PMID26208331
PMCPMC4514863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.