Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27496148›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2016

Cumulative risk of false positive test in relation to breast symptoms in mammography screening: a historical prospective cohort study.

Deependra Singh, Janne Pitkäniemi, Nea Malila, Ahti Anttila

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Racial and Ethnic Variation in Diagnostic Mammography Performance among Women Reporting a Breast Lump.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Deependra SinghFinnish Cancer Registry, Unioninkatu 22, 00130, Helsinki, Finland. deependra.singh@cancer.fi.
Janne PitkäniemiFinnish Cancer Registry, Unioninkatu 22, 00130, Helsinki, Finland.
Nea MalilaFinnish Cancer Registry, Unioninkatu 22, 00130, Helsinki, Finland.
Ahti AnttilaFinnish Cancer Registry, Unioninkatu 22, 00130, Helsinki, Finland.
Finnish Cancer Registry · FITampere University · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mammography has been found effective as the primary screening test for breast cancer. We estimated the cumulative probability of false positive screening test results with respect to symptom history reported at screen. A historical prospective cohort study was done using individual screening data from 413,611 women aged 50-69 years with 2,627,256 invitations for mammography screening between 1992 and 2012 in Finland. Symptoms (lump, retraction, and secretion) were reported at 56,805 visits, and 48,873 visits resulted in a false positive mammography result. Generalized linear models were used to estimate the probability of at least one false positive test and true positive at screening visits. The estimates were compared among women with and without symptoms history. The estimated cumulative probabilities were 18 and 6 % for false positive and true positive results, respectively. In women with a history of a lump, the cumulative probabilities of false positive test and true positive were 45 and 16 %, respectively, compared to 17 and 5 % with no reported lump. In women with a history of any given symptom, the cumulative probabilities of false positive test and true positive were 38 and 13 %, respectively. Likewise, women with a history of a 'lump and retraction' had the cumulative false positive probability of 56 %. The study showed higher cumulative risk of false positive tests and more cancers detected in women who reported symptoms compared to women who did not report symptoms at screen. The risk varies substantially, depending on symptom types and characteristics. Information on breast symptoms influences the balance of absolute benefits and harms of screening.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleFinlandHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRisk FactorsBreast cancer symptomsFalse positiveLumpMammographyScreeningTrue positive

Identifiers

PMID27496148
PMCPMC5012157
OpenAlexW2491139959

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.