ArticleMedicine2016
Women with abnormal screening mammography lost to follow-up: An experience from Taiwan.
Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The association between mammography reports and women's age using retrospective data form a medical system.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Article
- Experiences of Women Who Refuse Recall for Further Investigation of Abnormal Screening Mammography: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Erratum: Medicine, Volume 95, Issue 24: Erratum.Medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer has the highest incidence among all cancers for women in Taiwan. The current screening policy in Taiwan suggested a biennial mammography for all women 40 to 69 years of age. A recommendation for additional testing is recommended for women with a BI-RADS result of 0 or 4; a request made via postal mail. Approximately 20% of high-risk patients do not receive additional follow-up. Therefore, we aimed to explore the causes of these patients being lost to follow-up, despite an abnormal mammogram. Two questionnaires were designed separately according to the conceptual framework of the Health Belief Model. Study participants, women who received a screening mammography at the National Taiwan University Hospital in 2011 with a BI-RAD of 0 or 4, were interviewed via telephone. The dependent variable was receipt of follow-up or not. The analyses were performed by using χ tests and logistic regression models. In total, 528 women were enrolled in the study: 51.2% in BI-RADS 0 group and 56.6% in BI-RADS 4, respectively. In the BI-RADS 0 group, those patients who received a follow-up examination cited the most likely causes to be physician suggestion, health implications, and concerns regarding breast cancer. Patients who did not receive a follow-up examination cited a lack of time and a perception of good personal health as primary reasons. In the BI-RADS 4 group, those patients who received a follow-up examination cited the physician's recommendation and a recognition of the importance of follow-up examinations. Patients who did not receive a follow-up examination cited having received follow-up at another hospital and a desire for a second opinion. In the BI-RADS 0 group, multivariate analysis showed that patients with higher scores in the "perceived benefits" domain were statistically more likely to receive a follow-up examination. There was no significant difference in perceived threats, perceived barriers, action cues, or self-efficacy between groups. We conclude that additional education to raise breast cancer awareness in the general public and healthcare providers will be needed to improve the rate of follow-up examinations after an abnormal screening mammogram.
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.