ArticleRevista espanola de salud publica2020
[Results of the breast cancer population screening circuit at the San Carlos Clinical Hospital.]
Article in Revista espanola de salud publica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of the study was to compare the time difference between diagnose and treatment with relation to switching protocols in screening program, DEPRECAM; and to analyze the screening program over our sample.
methodsIt is a retrospective study involving 173 patients with two no time concurrent clinical cohorts referred from DEPRECAM program to San Carlos Clinic Hospital (HCSC) between March 2017 and January 2019. It was compared the time differences between the group forwarded to Breast Pathology service (Group A; n=92) and the group directly forwarded to Radiology department (Group B; n=81), using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test, estimating the difference of the means together with its 95% confidence interval.
resultsThe averaged time to final diagnosis for group A and group B was 38.55 and 35.01 days respectively; and averaged time to treatment was 102.46 and 95.6 days. The difference between groups was not statistically significant (diagnosis p=0.999; treatment p=0.451). The correlation between sizes recognized in imaging test was reasonable. The consistency between imaging test and Histopathology was weak.
conclusionsThe change in protocol does not reduce time significantly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32565536PMC11583176What 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.