Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30450274›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2018

Strong association between cervical and breast cancer screening behaviour among Danish women; A register-based cohort study.

S H Larsen, L F Virgilsen, B K Kristiansen, B Andersen, P Vedsted

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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.

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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Impact of Morbidity and Disability on Attendance at Organized Breast Cancer-Screening Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S H LarsenResearch Unit for General Practice, The Research Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care (CaP), Bartholins Allé 2, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
L F VirgilsenResearch Unit for General Practice, The Research Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care (CaP), Bartholins Allé 2, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
B K KristiansenDepartment for Public Health Programs, Randers Regional Hospital, Skovlyvej 1, 8930 Randers, Denmark.
B AndersenDepartment for Public Health Programs, Randers Regional Hospital, Skovlyvej 1, 8930 Randers, Denmark.
P VedstedResearch Unit for General Practice, The Research Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care (CaP), Bartholins Allé 2, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKRegional Hospital Randers · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High coverage is essential for the effectiveness of national screening programmes. Identifying non-screeners across different screening programmes may help inform strategies to improve uptake. This study aims to analyse the association between previous cervical cancer screening (CCS) coverage and participation in breast cancer screening (BCS). This historical register-based cohort study included 91,787 Danish women aged 50-64 years who were invited to participate in the first organised round of BCS in the Central Denmark Region (CDR) in 2008-09. CCS coverage was defined as having a smear registered in the 5 1/2 years preceding the BCS, and BCS participants were divided into participants and non-participants and further categorised as active non-participants (ANP) if they cancelled and passive non-participants (PNP) if they abstained from the appointment. Of all 91,787 women included in the study, 62,391 (68%) were covered both by CCS and participated in BCS. Women not covered by CCS were more likely to be non-participants in BCS than women covered by CCS (PRRadjusted = 2.80, 95% CI: 2.68-2.93). Both PNP (PRRadjusted = 3.99, 95% CI: 3.80-4.19) and ANP (PRRadjusted = 2.50, 95% CI: 2.34-2.68) were more likely not to be covered by the CCS. In conclusion, non-coverage by CCS was strongly associated with nonparticipation in BCS. Specific groups of women only participated in one screening programme. To increase uptake, future interventions may specifically target these groups.

Indexed as

Breast cancer screeningCervical cancer screeningCoverageDenmarkMammographyNon-participationSmear

Identifiers

PMID30450274
PMCPMC6234495
OpenAlexW2898562964

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.