ArticleBMC cancer2018
Breast diseases histologically diagnosed at a tertiary facility in Uganda (2005-2014).
Article in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Histopathological Profile of Different Breast Lesions: A Single-Center Observational Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Mapping Evidence on the Burden of Breast, Cervical, and Prostate Cancers in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Scoping Review.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence and distribution of histologically diagnosed breast disease are not well documented in low income countries, Uganda inclusive. Although the greater majority of breast lesions globally are benign, breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer all over the world. We aimed at documenting the prevalence of different breast diseases histologically diagnosed at the histopathology laboratory of the Department of Pathology of the Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS Lab) over a decade (2005-2014). We also describe the demographic characteristics of the patients in Uganda diagnosed with breast disease at the MakCHS Lab during the same period.
methodsThis was a 10 year retrospective study of histologically diagnosed breast disease between 2005 and 2014 inclusive at the MakCHS Lab. We extracted information from hard copies of all 2510 histopathology reports retrieved from archives of the Department of Pathology at the MakCHS Lab. 640 records that were either damaged beyond recognition of key details, were duplicated, were implausible or had no conclusive diagnosis made were excluded. Information to be analyzed was then entered into Epidata (version 3.1) on a password protected laptop. Data analysis was done using SPSS software (v16 for Windows × 64).
resultsFrom the 1870 patients' records eventually analyzed, breast disease was most diagnosed in female patients (97.1%). The overall mean age for breast disease diagnosis was 33 years (S.D ± 16.46) and median age 26 years (IQR: 20-43). Fibroadenoma (40.1%) was the most diagnosed breast disease overall. We noticed steadily increasing frequency of diagnosis of cancerous breast diseases over the last half of the study period. Invasive ductal carcinoma was the most diagnosed breast cancer (326 cases, 55.6%). A high female to male breast cancer ratio of 48:1 was observed. The highest regional breast cancer proportion was from the Western region of the Country.
conclusionsThere is need for more research into the picture of breast disease in the country, covering various demographic characteristics of the country's population for all regions and informing about its incidence rates and prevalence and also the breast cancer risk estimate for benign breast disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.