Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28522311›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Oncology2017

Effect of second timed appointments for non-attenders of breast cancer screening in England: a randomised controlled trial.

Prue C Allgood, Roberta Maroni, Sue Hudson, Judith Offman, Anne E Turnbull, Lesley Peacock, Jim Steel, Geraldine Kirby, Christine E Ingram, Julie Somers and 6 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Prue C AllgoodCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Roberta MaroniCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Sue HudsonPeel and Schriek Consulting, London, UK.
Judith OffmanCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Anne E TurnbullDerby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Derby Hospital, Southern Derbyshire Breast Screening Service, Derby, UK.
Lesley PeacockHull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Castle Hill Hospital, Humberside Breast Screening Service, Cottingham, UK.
Jim SteelPlymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Derriford Hospital, Primrose Breast Care Centre, Plymouth, UK.
Geraldine KirbySouth East London Breast Screening Programme, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Christine E IngramSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Breast Screening Unit, Sheffield, UK.
Julie SomersWest of London Breast Screening Service, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK.
Clare FullerWest of London Breast Screening Service, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK.
Anthony G ThrelfallTheorize, Manchester, UK.
Rhian GabeDepartment of Health Sciences and Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK.
Anthony J MaxwellDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Nightingale Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Julietta PatnickCancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Stephen W DuffyCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. Electronic address: s.w.duffy@qmul.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16892Cancer Research UK 16893
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn England, participation in breast cancer screening has been decreasing in the past 10 years, approaching the national minimum standard of 70%. Interventions aimed at improving participation need to be investigated and put into practice to stop this downward trend. We assessed the effect on participation of sending invitations for breast screening with a timed appointment to women who did not attend their first offered appointment within the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP).

methodsIn this open, randomised controlled trial, women in six centres in the NHSBSP in England who were invited for routine breast cancer screening were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive an invitation to a second appointment with fixed date and time (intervention) or an invitation letter with a telephone number to call to book their new screening appointment (control) in the event of non-attendance at the first offered appointment. Randomisation was by SX number, a sequential unique identifier of each woman within the NHSBSP, and at the beginning of the study a coin toss decided whether women with odd or even SX numbers would be allocated to the intervention group. Women aged 50-70 years who did not attend their first offered appointment were eligible for the analysis. The primary endpoint was participation (ie, attendance at breast cancer screening) within 90 days of the date of the first offered appointment; we used Poisson regression to compare the proportion of women who participated in screening in the study groups. All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Barts Health, number 009304QM.

findingsWe obtained 33 146 records of women invited for breast cancer screening at the six centres between June 2, 2014, and Sept 30, 2015, who did not attend their first offered appointment. 26 054 women were eligible for this analysis (12 807 in the intervention group and 13 247 in the control group). Participation within 90 days of the first offered appointment was significantly higher in the intervention group (2861 [22%] of 12 807) than in the control group (1632 [12%] of 13 247); relative risk of participation 1·81 (95% CI 1·70-1·93; p<0·0001).

interpretationThese findings show that a policy of second appointments with fixed date and time for non-attenders of breast screening is effective in improving participation. This strategy can be easily implemented by the screening sites and, if combined with simple interventions, could further increase participation and ensure an upward shift in the participation trend nationally. Whether the policy should vary by time since last attended screen will have to be considered.

fundingNational Health Service Cancer Screening Programmes and Department of Health Policy Research Programme.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesEarly Detection of CancerAgedBreast NeoplasmsEnglandFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedPatient ComplianceTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID28522311
PMCPMC5489696

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.