Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33827476›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2021

Delayed or failure to follow-up abnormal breast cancer screening mammograms in primary care: a systematic review.

Jeanette C Reece, Eleanor F G Neal, Peter Nguyen, Jennifer G McIntosh, Jon D Emery

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors.

Jeanette C ReeceColorectal Cancer Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Neuroepidemiology Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Level 3 207 Bouverie Street, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia. jreece@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2897-0271
Eleanor F G NealInfection and Immunity, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Australia.
Peter NguyenCentre for Cancer Research, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jennifer G McIntoshDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jon D EmeryCentre for Cancer Research, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuccessful breast cancer screening relies on timely follow-up of abnormal mammograms. Delayed or failure to follow-up abnormal mammograms undermines the potential benefits of screening and is associated with poorer outcomes. However, a comprehensive review of inadequate follow-up of abnormal mammograms in primary care has not previously been reported in the literature. This review could identify modifiable factors that influence follow-up, which if addressed, may lead to improved follow-up and patient outcomes.

methodsA systematic literature review to determine the extent of inadequate follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms in primary care and identify factors impacting on follow-up was conducted. Relevant studies published between 1 January, 1990 and 29 October, 2020 were identified by searching MEDLINE®, Embase, CINAHL® and Cochrane Library, including reference and citation checking. Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were used to assess the risk of bias of included studies according to study design.

resultsEighteen publications reporting on 17 studies met inclusion criteria; 16 quantitative and two qualitative studies. All studies were conducted in the United States, except one study from the Netherlands. Failure to follow-up abnormal screening mammograms within 3 and at 6 months ranged from 7.2-33% and 27.3-71.6%, respectively. Women of ethnic minority and lower education attainment were more likely to have inadequate follow-up. Factors influencing follow-up included physician-patient miscommunication, information overload created by automated alerts, the absence of adequate retrieval systems to access patient's results and a lack of coordination of patient records. Logistical barriers to follow-up included inconvenient clinic hours and inconsistent primary care providers. Patient navigation and case management with increased patient education and counselling by physicians was demonstrated to improve follow-up.

conclusionsFollow-up of abnormal mammograms in primary care is suboptimal. However, interventions addressing amendable factors that negatively impact on follow-up have the potential to improve follow-up, especially for populations of women at risk of inadequate follow-up.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareAbnormal mammogramBreast cancer screeningInadequate follow-upPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID33827476
PMCPMC8028768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.