Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32495085›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020

Variation in Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations by Primary Care Providers Surveyed in Wisconsin.

Emily Nachtigal, Noelle K LoConte, Sarah Kerch, Xiao Zhang, Amanda Parkes

Abstract 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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Emily NachtigalDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. enachtigal@uwhealth.org.ORCID 0000-0003-3415-6575
Noelle K LoConteDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Sarah KerchUniversity of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI, USA.
Xiao ZhangUniversity of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI, USA.
Amanda ParkesDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.

Funding

UW COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER SUPPORTP30CA014520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Christian Capitini · 1985 to 2026
$142.6M
CDC HHS NU58DP006328-03-00NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014520
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer screening is chiefly performed by primary care providers (PCPs) who rely on organizational screening guidelines. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations; however, they are often without unanimity leading to divergent screening recommendations.

objectiveDue to the high incidence of breast cancer, the availability of screening methods, and the presence of multiple incongruent guideline recommendations, we sought to understand breast cancer screening practices in Wisconsin to identify patterns that would allow us to improve evidence-based screening adherence.

methodsA 46-question survey on breast cancer screening beliefs and practices for average-risk women was sent to healthcare providers in Wisconsin in 2018, who provided cancer screening services to women. Providers included physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), and midwives.

resultsA total of 295 people responded to the survey, for a response rate of 28.6%. Most respondents were physicians (64.1%), followed by NPs (25.7%), PAs (5.3%), and midwives (1.5%). Of physicians, most practiced family medicine (65.3%), followed by internal medicine (25.3%) and gynecology (9.4%). The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) was reported as being "very influential" for 60.5% of providers, followed by the American Cancer Society at 46.8%. For patients 40-49 years old, 75.6% of providers performed clinical breast exams and 58.5% recommended self-breast exams; these numbers increased for women 50+ years old to 78.7% and 61.2%, respectively. Mammography was more likely to be recommended annually for women aged 40-49 rather than biennially by non-physician clinicians compared to physicians (p < .001).

conclusionsPCPs in Wisconsin continue to overestimate the efficacy of clinical and self-breast exams as well as overuse these in clinical practice. Providers find multiple screening guidelines influential but favor the USPSTF; however, these guidelines are frequently not being followed. Further research needs to be done to investigate the lack of national guideline adherence by providers to improve compliance with evidence-based screening recommendations.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerAdultFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesWisconsinbreast cancercancer screeningprimary care providersWisconsin

Identifiers

PMID32495085
PMCPMC7459047

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.