ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2017
Mammography rates after the 2009 revision to the United States Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendation.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Individual-Level Trends in Mammography Screening over 14 years: Results from an All-Payer Statewide Claims Database.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- Women's screening preferences shift after being informed about the 2024 USPSTF breast cancer screening guideline.Patient education and counseling · 2026Article
- Trends in Urethral Suspension With Robotic Prostatectomy Procedures Following Medicare Payment Policy Changes.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Racial Disparities Persist in Cancer Screening: New USPSTF Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Illuminate Inadequate Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines for Black Women.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Machine learning-based lifetime breast cancer risk reclassification compared with the BOADICEA model: impact on screening recommendations.British journal of cancer · 2020Article
- Machine learning techniques for personalized breast cancer risk prediction: comparison with the BCRAT and BOADICEA models.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2019Article
- Breast Cancer Incidence by Stage Before and After Change in Screening Guidelines.American journal of preventive medicine · 2019Article
- Assessment of trends in cervical cancer screening rates using healthcare claims data: United States, 2003-2014.Preventive medicine reports · 2018Article
- BRCA Genetic Testing and Receipt of Preventive Interventions Among Women Aged 18-64 Years with Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Areas - United States, 2009-2014.Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002) · 2017Article
- Variation in State-Level Mammography Use, 2012 and 2020.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine mammography screening for women aged 40-49 years. This revised recommendation was widely criticized and has sparked off intense debate. The objectives of this study are to examine the impact of the revised recommendation on the proportion of women receiving mammograms and how the effect varied by age.
methodsWe identified women who had continuous health insurance coverage and who did not have breast cancer between 2008 and 2011 in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims Databases using mammogram procedure codes. Using women aged 50-59 years as a control group, we used a differences-in-differences approach to estimate the impact of the revised recommendation on the proportion of women ages 40-49 years who received at least one mammogram. We also compared the age-specific changes in the proportion of women ages 35-59 years who were screened before and after the release of the revised recommendation.
resultsThe proportion of women screened among the 40-49 and 50-59 age groups were 58.5 and 62.5%, respectively, between 2008 and 2009, and 56.9 and 62.0%, respectively, between 2010 and 2011. After 2009, the proportion of women screened declined by 1.2 percentage point among women aged 40-49 years (P < 0.01). The proportion of women screened decreased for all ages, and decreases were larger among women closer to the 40-year threshold.
conclusionsThe 2009 USPSTF breast cancer recommendation was followed by a small reduction in the proportion of insured women aged 40-49 years who were screened. Reductions were larger among women at the younger end of the age range, who presumably had less prior experience with mammography than women nearing 50.
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.