ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2016
Follow-Up of Abnormal Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening by Race/Ethnicity.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2018Pooled it
- Interventions to Improve Follow-up of Positive Results on Fecal Blood Tests: A Systematic Review.Annals of internal medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Prospective Cohort study of Predictors of Follow-Up Diagnostic Colonoscopy from a Pragmatic Trial of FIT Screening.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- Review
- Gaps in care across the cancer screening continuum for cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- The Role of Race/Ethnicity on the Association between Neighborhood Deprivation and Breast Cancer Outcomes among Kentucky Patients with Breast Cancer (2010-2022).Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Article
- Intention to have blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) screening among men and women aged 50-77 years from Black and Asian backgrounds: a cross-sectional survey in Great Britain.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Racial Disparities and Strategies for Improving Equity in Diagnostic Follow-Up for Abnormal Screening Mammograms.JCO oncology practice · 2024Article
- Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening and Risk of Colorectal Cancer Death.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Effect of neighborhood and individual-level socioeconomic factors on breast cancer screening adherence in a multi-ethnic study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Primary Care Provider Receptivity to Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test Use in Cancer Screening.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Black-White disparities in colorectal cancer outcomes: a simulation study of screening benefit.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2023Article
- Commentary: Health disparities across the cancer care continuum and implications for microsimulation modeling.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2023Article
- Engaging Black sexual minority women in breast cancer research: Lessons in community partnerships.Cancer · 2023Article
- Sources of Disparities in Surveillance Mammography Performance and Risk-Guided Recommendations for Supplemental Breast Imaging: A Simulation Study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023Article
- Equitable Implementation of Mailed Stool Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening and Patient Navigation in a Safety Net Health System.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Breast cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: moving from disparities to health equity.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Multicancer early detection tests: where are we?JNCI cancer spectrum · 2023Article
- Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Article
- Delays in Follow-up Care for Abnormal Mammograms in Mobile Mammography Versus Fixed-Clinic Patients.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors at 15 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTimely follow-up of abnormal tests is critical to the effectiveness of cancer screening, but may vary by screening test, healthcare system, and sociodemographic group.
methodsTimely follow-up of abnormal mammogram and fecal occult blood testing or fecal immunochemical tests (FOBT/FIT) were compared by race/ethnicity using Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium data. Participants were women with an abnormal mammogram (aged 40-75 years) or FOBT/FIT (aged 50-75 years) in 2010-2012. Analyses were performed in 2015. Timely follow-up was defined as colonoscopy ≤3 months following positive FOBT/FIT; additional imaging or biopsy ≤3 months following Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 0, 4, or 5 mammograms; or ≤9 months following Category 3 mammograms. Logistic regression was used to model receipt of timely follow-up adjusting for study site, age, year, insurance, and income.
resultsAmong 166,602 mammograms, 10.7% were abnormal; among 566,781 FOBT/FITs, 4.3% were abnormal. Nearly 96% of patients with abnormal mammograms received timely follow-up versus 68% with abnormal FOBT/FIT. There was greater variability in receipt of follow-up across healthcare systems for positive FOBT/FIT than for abnormal mammograms. For mammography, black women were less likely than whites to receive timely follow-up (91.8% vs 96.0%, OR=0.71, 95% CI=0.51, 0.97). For FOBT/FIT, Hispanics were more likely than whites to receive timely follow-up than whites (70.0% vs 67.6%, OR=1.12, 95% CI=1.04, 1.21).
conclusionsTimely follow-up among women was more likely for abnormal mammograms than FOBT/FITs, with small variations in follow-up rates by race/ethnicity and larger variation across healthcare systems.
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.