Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33774734›Full record

SynthesisBreast cancer research and treatment2021

The impact of mandatory mammographic breast density notification on supplemental screening practice in the United States: a systematic review.

Shuangqin Huang, Nehmat Houssami, Meagan Brennan, Brooke Nickel

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Psychosocial Impact of Breast Density Notification Through Breast Cancer Screening: A Qualitative Interview Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Current Concepts in Molecular Breast Imaging.Journal of breast imaging · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. A Survey of Patient Experience During Molecular Breast Imaging.Journal of nuclear medicine technology · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Impact of BMI on Prevalence of Dense Breasts by Race and Ethnicity.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Shuangqin HuangSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5058-097X
Nehmat HoussamiSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3641-952X
Meagan Brennan *School of Medicine Sydney, University of Notre Dame Australia, Oxford St, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia. Meagan.brennan@nd.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3281-7643
Brooke Nickel *Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8100-4278

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 1194410
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDense breast tissue is an independent risk factor for breast cancer and lowers the sensitivity of screening mammography. Supplemental screening with ultrasound or MRI improves breast cancer detection rate but has potential harms. Breast density notification (BDN) legislation has been introduced in the United States (US) and its impact on supplemental screening practice is unclear. This study systematically reviewed current evidence to explore the impact of BDN on supplemental screening practice in the US.

methodsMedline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and the Cinhal Library databases were searched (2009-August 2020). Studies were assessed for eligibility, data were extracted and summarised, and study quality was evaluated.

resultsEvidence from the included studies (n = 14) predominantly showed that BDN legislation increased the overall utilisation of supplemental screening by 0.5-143%. This effect was amplified if the notification included a follow-up telephone call informing women about additional screening benefits, and if the state's law mandated insurance cover for supplemental screening. Likelihood of supplemental screening was also influenced by history of breast biopsy and family history of breast cancer, race, age, socioeconomic status, density category, and physician's specialty and region. Some studies reported increases in biopsy rate (up to 4%) and cancer detection rate (up to 11%) after implementation of BDN legislation.

conclusionBDN leads to increased use of supplemental screening. This has implications for women and the health system. These findings can help inform current and future screening programs, where breast density notification is currently implemented or being considered.

Indexed as

Breast DensityBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningUnited StatesBreast densityLegislationMammographyNotificationSupplemental screening

Identifiers

PMID33774734

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.