Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31916210›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020

Dense Breast Notification Laws, Education, and Women's Awareness and Knowledge of Breast Density: a Nationally Representative Survey.

Kelly A Kyanko, Jessica Hoag, Susan H Busch, Jenerius A Aminawung, Xiao Xu, Ilana B Richman, Cary P Gross

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Cancer Progress and Priorities: Breast Cancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021
    Review
  19. Dense Breast Notification Legislation: More Reasons for Caution.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kelly A KyankoDepartment of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, 10016, USA. Kelly.Kyanko@nyumc.org.
Jessica HoagYale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Susan H BuschYale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Jenerius A AminawungYale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Xiao XuYale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Ilana B RichmanYale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Cary P GrossYale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Yale University · USNew York University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo date, 38 states have enacted dense breast notification (DBN) laws mandating that mammogram reports include language informing women of risks related to dense breast tissue.

objectiveNationally representative survey to assess the association between residing in a state with a DBN law and women's awareness and knowledge about breast density, and breast cancer anxiety.

designInternet survey conducted in 2018 with participants in KnowledgePanel®, an online research panel.

participantsEnglish-speaking US women ages 40-59 years without a personal history of breast cancer who had received at least one screening mammogram (N = 1928; survey completion rate 68.2%). MAIN MEASURES: (1) Reported history of increased breast density, (2) knowledge of the increased risk of breast cancer with dense breasts, (3) knowledge of the masking effect of dense breasts on mammography, and (4) breast cancer anxiety. KEY

resultsWomen residing in DBN states were more likely to report increased breast density (43.6%) compared with women residing in non-DBN states (32.7%, p < 0.01, adjusted odds ratio, 1.70, 95% CI,1.34-2.17). Interaction effect between DBN states and education status showed that the impact of DBN on women's reporting of dense breasts was significant for women with greater than high school education, but not among women with a high school education or less (p value = 0.01 for interaction). Only 23.0% of women overall knew that increased breast density was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer, and 68.0% of women understood that dense breasts decreased the sensitivity of mammography. There were no significant differences between women in DBN states and non-DBN states for these outcomes, or for breast cancer-related anxiety.

conclusionsState DBN laws were not associated with increased understanding of the clinical implications of breast density. DBN laws were associated with a higher likelihood of women reporting increased breast density, though not among women with lower education.

Indexed as

Breast DensityBreast NeoplasmsAdultEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesawarenessbreast cancer screeningeducationlegislation

Identifiers

PMID31916210
PMCPMC7351910
OpenAlexW3000622778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.