ArticlePublic health genomics2016
Validation of an Efficient Screening Tool to Identify Low-Income Women at High Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer.
Article in Public health genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The breast cancer genetic testing experience: probing the potential utility of an online decision aid in risk perception and decision making.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- User Comprehension and EHR Integration of theAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- Cancer screening and breast cancer family history in Spanish-speaking Hispanic/Latina women in California.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Research to reduce inequities in cancer risk services: Insights for remote genetic counseling in a pandemic and beyond.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- Increased ease of access to genetic counseling for low-income women with breast cancer using a point of care screening tool.Journal of community genetics · 2021Article
- Mental Illness and BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing Intention Among Multiethnic Women Undergoing Screening Mammography.Oncology nursing forum · 2020Article
- Blending Insights from Implementation Science and the Social Sciences to Mitigate Inequities in Screening for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Uptake of genetic testing for germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in a predominantly Hispanic population.Cancer genetics · 2019Article
- Understanding Factors Associated with Uptake of BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing among Orthodox Jewish Women in the USA Using a Mixed-Methods Approach.Public health genomics · 2018Article
- Automatic Genetic Risk Assessment Calculation Using Breast Cancer Family History Data from the EHR compared to Self-Report.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
- Insights into BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling from Ethnically Diverse Latina Breast Cancer Survivors.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsWe compared the 6-Point Scale, a screening tool to identify low-income women for referral to genetic counseling, with genetic counselors' (GCs') recommendation and the Referral Screening Tool (RST).
methodsRST and 6-Point Scale scores were computed for 2 samples: (1) S1, public hospital mammography clinic patients in 2006-2010 (n = 744), classified by GCs as high risk (meriting referral to counseling) or not high risk, and (2) S2, primary care patients enrolled in an education intervention study in 2011-2012 (n = 1,425). Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUROC) were computed for the 6-Point Scale score versus GC and RST classification as high risk.
resultsThe 6-Point Scale had low sensitivity (0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.34) but high specificity (0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99) and AUROC (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90) versus GC classification, and high sensitivity (S1: 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.00; S2: 0.94, 95% CI 0.87-0.97), specificity (S1: 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.97; S2: 0.94, 95% CI 0.93-0.96), and AUROC (S1: 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99; S2: 0.98, 95% CI 0.98-0.99) versus the RST.
conclusionThe 6-Point Scale compared favorably with the RST, a validated instrument, and is potentially useful as a simple tool for administration in a safety net setting, requiring minimal time investment by primary care physicians and their staff and no financial investment in tablet computers or software.
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.