Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30275116›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2019

Multilevel Regression for Small-Area Estimation of Mammography Use in the United States, 2014.

Zahava Berkowitz, Xingyou Zhang, Thomas B Richards, Susan A Sabatino, Lucy A Peipins, James Holt, Mary C White

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. PLACES: Local Data for Better Health.Preventing chronic disease · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Zahava BerkowitzNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Chamblee, Georgia. zab3@cdc.gov.
Xingyou ZhangU.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, District of Columbia.
Thomas B RichardsNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Chamblee, Georgia.ORCID 0000-0003-4688-1459
Susan A SabatinoNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Chamblee, Georgia.
Lucy A PeipinsNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Chamblee, Georgia.
James HoltNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Chamblee, Georgia.
Mary C WhiteNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Chamblee, Georgia.ORCID 0000-0002-9826-3962

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50-74 years. County-level information on population measures of mammography use can inform targeted intervention to reduce geographic disparities in mammography use. County-level estimates for mammography use nationwide are rarely presented.

methodsWe used data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS;

resultsCorrelation coefficients were 0.94 or larger. Mean absolute differences for the two outcomes ranged from 0.79 to 1.03. Although 78.45% (95% confidence interval, 77.95%-78.92%) of women nationally were up-to-date with mammography, more than half of the states had counties with >15% of women rarely/never using a mammogram, many in rural areas.

conclusionsWe provided estimates for all U.S. counties and identified marked variations in mammography use. Many states and counties were far from the 2020 target (81.1%). IMPACT: Our results suggest a need for planning and resource allocation on a local level to increase mammography uptake.

Indexed as

Breast DensityAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth BehaviorHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMammographyMiddle AgedUnited States

Identifiers

PMID30275116
PMCPMC6343124

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.