ArticlePreventive medicine reports2021
A framework for personalized mammogram screening.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Breast cancer screening guidelines serve as crucial evidence-based recommendations in deciding when to begin regular screenings. However, due to developments in breast cancer research and differences in research interpretation, screening guidelines can vary between organizations and within organizations over time. This leads to significant lapses in adopting updated guidelines, variable decision making between physicians, and unnecessary screening for low to moderate risk patients (Jacobson and Kadiyala, 2017; Corbelli et al., 2014). For analysis, risk factors were assessed for patient screening behaviors and results. The outcome variable for the first analysis was whether the patient had undergone screening. The risk factors considered were age, marital status, education level, rural versus urban residence, and family history of breast cancer. The outcome variable for the second analysis was whether patients who had undergone breast cancer screening presented abnormal results. The risk factors considered were age, Body Mass Index, family history, smoking and alcohol status, hormonal contraceptive use, Hormone Replacement Therapy use, age of first pregnancy, number of pregnancies (parity), age of first menses, rural versus urban residence, and whether or not patients had at least one child. Logistic regression analysis displayed strong associations for both outcome variables. Risk of screening nonattendance was negatively associated with age as a continuous variable, age as a dichotomous variable, being married, any college education, and family history. Risk of one or more abnormal mammogram findings was positively associated with family history, and hormonal contraceptive use. This procedure will be further developed to incorporate additional risk factors and refine the analysis of currently implemented risk factors.
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.