Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29433892›Full record

ArticleAcademic radiology2018

Communication Practices of Mammography Facilities and Timely Follow-up of a Screening Mammogram with a BI-RADS 0 Assessment.

Marilyn M Schapira, William E Barlow, Emily F Conant, Brian L Sprague, Anna N A Tosteson, Jennifer S Haas, Tracy Onega, Elisabeth F Beaber, Martha Goodrich, Anne Marie McCarthy and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06305312 (Community Services Navigation to Advance Health Equity in Breast Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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.

NCT06305312 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Community Services Navigation to Advance Health Equity in Breast Cancer Screening

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of UtahRan2024 to 2028Enrolled1,450ConditionsBreast CancerArmsCommunity Service Navigation, Usual Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

14 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Marilyn M SchapiraDepartment of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, 1316 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104; Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: mschap@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
William E BarlowFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Emily F ConantDepartment of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Brian L SpragueDepartments of Surgery and Radiology, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.
Anna N A TostesonGeisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Jennifer S HaasBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Tracy OnegaGeisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Elisabeth F BeaberFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Martha GoodrichGeisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Anne Marie McCarthyMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sally D HerschornDepartment of Radiology, Fletcher Allen Health Care, Burlington, Vermont.
Celette Sugg SkinnerUniversity of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas.
Tory O HarringtonUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Berta GellerUniversity of Vermont and State Agricultural College, Vineyard Haven, Massachusetts.
Dartmouth College · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USUniversity of Vermont · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of Vermont Medical Center · US

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA CAN CTR SUPPORT GRANTP30CA016520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SHELLEY L BERGER · 1985 to 2026
$222.3M
Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Diana L Miglioretti · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
PROSPR Statistical Coordinating Center (PSCC)U01CA163304 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI BARLOW, WILLIAM E, THORNQUIST, MARK · 2011 to 2017
$7.5M
Vermont Screening Process Documentation UnitU54CA163303 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI SPRAGUE, BRIAN L · 2011 to 2017
$6.4M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016520NCI NIH HHS U01 CA163304NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE AND

objectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the association of communication practices with timely follow-up of screening mammograms read as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS) 0 in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. MATERIALS AND

methodsA radiology facility survey was conducted in 2015 with responses linked to screening mammograms obtained in 2011-2014. We considered timely follow-up to be within 15 days of the screening mammogram. Generalized estimating equation models were used to evaluate the association between modes of communication with patients and providers and timely follow-up, adjusting for PROSPR site, patient age, and race and ethnicity.

resultsThe analysis included 34,680 mammography examinations with a BI-RADS 0 assessment among 28 facilities. Across facilities, 85.6% of examinations had a follow-up within 15 days. Patients in a facility where routine practice was to contact the patient by phone if follow-up imaging was recommended were more likely to have timely follow-up (odds ratio [OR] 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.76-7.76), whereas standard use of mail was associated with reduced timely follow-up (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.75). Facilities that had standard use of electronic medical records to report the need for follow-up imaging to a provider had less timely follow-up (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.90). Facilities that routinely contacted patients by mail if they missed a follow-up imaging visit were more likely to have timely follow-up (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.02-2.69).

conclusionsOur findings support the value of telephone communication to patients in relation to timely follow-up. Future research is needed to evaluate the role of communication in completing the breast cancer screening episode.

Indexed as

CommunicationAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedPostal ServiceRadiologySurveys and QuestionnairesTelephoneTime FactorscommunicationScreening mammographytimely follow-up

Identifiers

PMID29433892
PMCPMC6402569
OpenAlexW2793595499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.