ArticleCancer medicine2020
Breast cancer supplemental screening: Women's knowledge and utilization in the era of dense breast legislation.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic capability of automated breast ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- The impact of mandatory mammographic breast density notification on supplemental screening practice in the United States: a systematic review.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Pooled it
- Fragmented ownership and multilevel barriers to breast MRI screening among high-risk women: A qualitative study informing development of clinical decision support.Research square · 2026Article
- Dense Breast Legislation and Supplemental Breast Imaging Among Women Undergoing Mammography.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Where are we now and where do we go from here? A structured literature review analyzing the current state of breast density research trends and discussions.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Review
- Protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to increase supplemental breast MRI screening among patients with extremely dense breasts.Implementation science : IS · 2023Article
- Breast cancer supplemental screening: Women's knowledge and utilization in the era of dense breast legislation.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven the growth in dense breast notification (DBN) legislation in the United States, we examined the association between different types of DBN laws and supplemental screening behaviors among women.
methodsWe surveyed in March-April 2018 a nationally representative sample of women aged 40-59 years who received a routine screening mammogram in the past 18 months. Survey items included the following topics regarding supplemental screening: discussing risks or benefits with a provider, knowledge about the risk of false positives, and utilization. We grouped women by state DBN into non-DBN, generic DBN (mentions breast density but not supplemental screening), DBN that mentions supplemental screening (DBN-SS), and DBN with mandated insurance coverage for supplemental screening (DBN-coverage), and estimated adjusted predicted probabilities for supplemental screening behaviors.
resultsOf 1641 women surveyed, 21.3% resided in non-DBN, 41.2% in generic DBN, 25.8% in DBN-SS, and 12.5% in DBN-coverage states. Overall, 23.0% of respondents had discussed supplemental screening with a provider, 11.3% of whom discussed the risks, and 49.5% discussed the benefits. In adjusted analysis, women living in DBN-coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening (27.5%) than women in non-DBN states (13.6%); pairwise contrast 13.8% (95% CI, 2.1% to 25.6%; P = .01). They were also more likely to have received supplemental screening for increased breast density (19.3%) compared to women living in non-DBN (9.9%); contrast 9.4% (95% CI, 1.6% to 17.3%; P = .01), Generic DBN (7.3%); difference 12.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 19.4%; P =< .001), and DBN-SS (8.8%); contrast 10.5% (95% CI, 2.6% to 18.5%; P < .01) states.
conclusionsWomen in DBN-coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening with their providers, and to undergo supplemental screening, compared to women in states with other types of DBN laws, or without DBN laws.
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.