Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28157381›Full record

Observational studyHealth communication2018

Informing Women and Their Physicians about Recommendations for Adjunct Breast MRI Screening: A Cohort Study.

John T Brinton, Lora D Barke, Mary E Freivogel, Tiffany C Talley, Michelle D Lexin, Alicia L Drew, Rachel B Beam, Deborah H Glueck

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Health communication, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

John T Brintona Department of Biostatistics and Informatics , Colorado School of Public Health.
Lora D Barkeb Radiology Imaging Associates and Invision Sally Jobe Breast Centers.
Mary E Freivogelb Radiology Imaging Associates and Invision Sally Jobe Breast Centers.
Tiffany C Talleyb Radiology Imaging Associates and Invision Sally Jobe Breast Centers.
Michelle D Lexinb Radiology Imaging Associates and Invision Sally Jobe Breast Centers.
Alicia L Drewb Radiology Imaging Associates and Invision Sally Jobe Breast Centers.
Rachel B Beamb Radiology Imaging Associates and Invision Sally Jobe Breast Centers.
Deborah H Glueckc Department of Biostatistics and Informatics , Colorado School of Public Health.

Funding

Methods and Software for Lifecourse Epidemiology Data and Sample Size AnalysisR01GM121081 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI DABELEA, DANA, GLUECK, DEBORAH HELEN · 2016 to 2019
$2.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM121081
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is unclear how best to communicate recommendations for breast cancer screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography for women at high risk. This study compares the rates of breast MRI screening for two different methods of communication. The retrospective IRB-approved cohort study was conducted at Invision Sally Jobe Breast Centers (ISJBC). ISJBC provided Gail model risk assessment to all women presenting for screening mammography. Women with scores ≥ 19.6% were considered to be high risk. Over 2 years, ISJBC used two different methods to inform women at elevated lifetime risk and their physicians about recommendations for adjunct MRI screening (N = 561, mean age = 52 years, s.d. = 8.7). During Window A, information was sent to referring physicians as a part of the dictated imaging report, while later, in Window B, the information was sent to referring physicians as well as to the women themselves in a letter. Analyses were stratified by mammography screening frequency. One-time screeners presented in only Window A or Window B. Repeat screeners came both in Window A and in Window B. Breast MRI screening rates were significantly higher in Window B than in Window A (one-time screeners, N = 459, 9.8% vs. 14.4%, p = 0.047; repeat screeners, N = 102, 0% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.016). Although an observational study cannot assess causality, direct communication of risk-based recommendations for adjunct breast MRI screening to women and to their referring physicians was associated with an increased rate of screening breast MRI completion at the same clinic at which the women underwent mammography.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGuidelines as TopicHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID28157381
PMCPMC6714970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.