Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26883201›Full record

Trial reportOncotarget2016

Decision aid on breast cancer screening reduces attendance rate: results of a large-scale, randomized, controlled study by the DECIDEO group.

Aurelie Bourmaud, Patricia Soler-Michel, Mathieu Oriol, Véronique Regnier, Fabien Tinquaut, Alice Nourissat, Alain Bremond, Nora Moumjid, Franck Chauvin

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018
    Guideline
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

9 authors.

Aurelie BourmaudHygée Centre, Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institut, CIC-EC Inserm 1408, Saint Priest en Jarez, France.
Patricia Soler-MichelAdémas-69, Association pour le Dépistage Organisé des Cancers dans le Rhône, Lyon, France.
Mathieu OriolHygée Centre, Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institut, CIC-EC Inserm 1408, Saint Priest en Jarez, France.
Véronique RegnierHygée Centre, Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institut, CIC-EC Inserm 1408, Saint Priest en Jarez, France.
Fabien TinquautHygée Centre, Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institut, CIC-EC Inserm 1408, Saint Priest en Jarez, France.
Alice NourissatHygée Centre, Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institut, CIC-EC Inserm 1408, Saint Priest en Jarez, France.
Alain BremondJean Monnet University, Saint-Etienne, France.
Nora MoumjidLyon 1 University, Lyon, France.
Franck ChauvinHygée Centre, Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institut, CIC-EC Inserm 1408, Saint Priest en Jarez, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Controversies regarding the benefits of breast cancer screening programs have led to the promotion of new strategies taking into account individual preferences, such as decision aid. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a decision aid leaflet on the participation of women invited to participate in a national breast cancer screening program. This Randomized, multicentre, controlled trial. Women aged 50 to 74 years, were randomly assigned to receive either a decision aid or the usual invitation letter. Primary outcome was the participation rate 12 months after the invitation. 16 000 women were randomized and 15 844 included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The participation rate in the intervention group was 40.25% (3174/7885 women) compared with 42.13% (3353/7959) in the control group (p = 0.02). Previous attendance for screening (RR = 6.24; [95%IC: 5.75-6.77]; p < 0.0001) and medium household income (RR = 1.05; [95%IC: 1.01-1.09]; p = 0.0074) were independently associated with attendance for screening. This large-scale study demonstrates that the decision aid reduced the participation rate. The decision aid activate the decision making process of women toward non-attendance to screening. These results show the importance of promoting informed patient choices, especially when those choices cannot be anticipated.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAgedBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle Agedbreast cancer screeningdecision aiddecision making patient educationinformed decisionrandomized control trial

Identifiers

PMID26883201
PMCPMC4914328

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.