Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31759366›Full record

ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2019

Comparative Analysis between the Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick and BRCAPRO Models for Breast Cancer Screening in Brazilian Population.

Kely Paviani Stevanato, Raíssa Bocchi Pedroso, Pedro Iora, Lander Dos Santos, Fernando Castilho Pelloso, Willian Augusto de Melo, Maria Dalva de Barros Carvalho, Sandra Marisa Pelloso

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kely Paviani StevanatoMaster's Degree in Health Sciences of the Graduate Program in Health Sciences, State University of Maringá (UEM), Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-1872-8246
Raíssa Bocchi PedrosoPostdoctoral Fellowship of the Postgraduate Program in Health Sciences, State University of Maringá (UEM), Brazil.
Pedro IoraStudent of the Medical School, State University of Maringá (UEM), Brazil.
Lander Dos SantosMaster's Degree in Health Sciences of the Graduate Program in Health Sciences, State University of Maringá (UEM), Brazil.
Fernando Castilho PellosoStudent of the Medical at Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), Brazil.
Willian Augusto de MeloLecturer at the Nursing Department of the Paraná State University, Paranavaí campus Brazil.
Maria Dalva de Barros CarvalhoLecturer at the Department of Medicine at Unicesumar University and Professor at the Department of Postgraduate Science in Health, State University of Maringá (UEM),Brazil.
Sandra Marisa PellosoLecturer at the Department of Medicine at Unicesumar University and Professor at the Department of Postgraduate Science in Health, State University of Maringá (UEM),Brazil.
Master's College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo analyze the diagnostic accuracy of predictive models of breast cancer risk for the Brazilian population.

methodA cross-sectional, study was conducted in a sample of 382 women aged 35-69 years who were users of the Unified Health System (SUS) residing in a municipality in southern Brazil.

resultsThe results showed that the Tyrer-Cuzick model had the highest mean risk values and estimates (proportion) for predicting the 5-year risk of breast cancer, reaching a maximum risk of ±1.63% in the 60-64 year age group. For the 90-year risk, a maximum risk of ±12.8% was predicted for the 50-54 year age group using this model. The 5-year risk calculated by the three tools increased progressively with increasing age, where the mean risk was ±0.8% in women aged 35-39 and reached ±1.50% in women aged 65-69. The 90-year risk declined with increasing age only in the Tyrer-Cuzick model, from ±10.8% to ±9%. The BRCAPRO model presented a greater sensitivity compared to the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick models. And, the model that presented greater specificity was Gail.

conclusionThe Tyrer-Cuzick model presented the highest risk estimates for 5 years and 90 years in the studied population, however, this data is not enough to validate this tool, since when analyzing the sensitivity and specificity the BRCAPRO and Gail have the highest values respectively.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBrazilBreastBreast NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSensitivity and Specificitybreast cancerRisk modelsScreening

Identifiers

PMID31759366
PMCPMC7063010
OpenAlexW2991318721

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.