ArticleCureus2019
Adherence to the United States Preventative Services Task Force Female Screening Guidelines: An Internal Medicine Residency Program Experience.
Article in Cureus, 2019. 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.
- Critical gaps in knowledge and implementation of recommendations by the US Preventive Services Task Force.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- A framework for personalized mammogram screening.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Various guidelines exist for female preventative screening tests and medical resident physician adherence to the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines varies. National screening rates for breast cancer and osteoporosis have improved but they are still below the expected target. Material and methods Ambulatory medical clinic records of female patients from the period July 2015 to December 2017 were reviewed for breast cancer and osteoporosis screening. Resident performance and commitment with regards to ordering the aforementioned screening tests according to the USPSTF guidelines were compared to the most recent national screening rates for mammograms and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. Results Of the 1327 charts reviewed, 1025 was included in the study. Of the 545 mammograms performed, 93% of them were indicated according to the USPSTF guidelines (P < 0.0001, 95% CI: 125.9-342.0). A total of 480 mammograms were not ordered, of which 6% were indicated and 93.9% were not indicated. Out of a total of 107 DXA scans performed, 88.7% were correctly indicated (P < 0.0001, 95% CI: 37.11-132.9). Conclusion Resident physician adherence to the USPSTF screening guidelines for breast cancer and DXA scans were higher than the national and state screening rates. Our well-structured educational project (strong faculty mentorship, resident to patient continuity of care and the reasonable resident-clinic load) resulted in higher screening rates.
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.