Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31620366›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2019

Assessing and Explaining Geographic Variations in Mammography Screening Participation and Breast Cancer Incidence.

Jonas Czwikla, Iris Urbschat, Joachim Kieschke, Frank Schüssler, Ingo Langner, Falk Hoffmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  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. 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

6 authors.

Jonas CzwiklaDepartment of Health Services Research, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Iris UrbschatEpidemiological Cancer Registry of Lower Saxony, Registry Unit Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Joachim KieschkeEpidemiological Cancer Registry of Lower Saxony, Registry Unit Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Frank SchüsslerInstitute for Applied Photogrammetry and Geoinformatics, Jade University of Applied Sciences Wilhelmshaven/Oldenburg/Elsfleth, Oldenburg, Germany.
Ingo LangnerDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Falk HoffmannDepartment of Health Services Research, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Investigating geographic variations in mammography screening participation and breast cancer incidence help improve prevention strategies to reduce the burden of breast cancer. This study examined the suitability of health insurance claims data for assessing and explaining geographic variations in mammography screening participation and breast cancer incidence at the district level. Based on screening unit data (1,181,212 mammography screening events), cancer registry data (13,241 incident breast cancer cases) and claims data (147,325 mammography screening events; 1,778 incident breast cancer cases), screening unit and claims-based standardized participation ratios (SPR) of mammography screening as well as cancer registry and claims-based standardized incidence ratios (SIR) of breast cancer between 2011 and 2014 were estimated for the 46 districts of the German federal state of Lower Saxony. Bland-Altman analyses were performed to benchmark claims-based SPR and SIR against screening unit and cancer registry data. Determinants of district-level variations were investigated at the individual and contextual level using claims-based multilevel logistic regression analysis. In claims and benchmark data, SPR showed considerable variations and SIR hardly any. Claims-based estimates were between 0.13 below and 0.14 above (SPR), and between 0.36 below and 0.36 above (SIR) the benchmark. Given the limited suitability of health insurance claims data for assessing geographic variations in breast cancer incidence, only mammography screening participation was investigated in the multilevel analysis. At the individual level, 10 of 31 Elixhauser comorbidities were negatively and 11 positively associated with mammography screening participation. Age and comorbidities did not contribute to the explanation of geographic variations. At the contextual level, unemployment rate was negatively and the proportion of employees with an academic degree positively associated with mammography screening participation. Unemployment, income, education, foreign population and type of district explained 58.5% of geographic variations. Future studies should combine health insurance claims data with individual data on socioeconomic characteristics, lifestyle factors, psychological factors, quality of life and health literacy as well as contextual data on socioeconomic characteristics and accessibility of mammography screening. This would allow a comprehensive investigation of geographic variations in mammography screening participation and help to further improve prevention strategies for reducing the burden of breast cancer.

Indexed as

breast cancercancer registry datageographic variationshealth insurance claims dataincidencemammography screeningparticipationscreening unit data

Identifiers

PMID31620366
PMCPMC6759661

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.