Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34990395›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2022

No association between breast pain and breast cancer: a prospective cohort study of 10 830 symptomatic women presenting to a breast cancer diagnostic clinic.

Rajiv V Dave, Hannah Bromley, Vicky P Taxiarchi, Elizabeth Camacho, Sumohan Chatterjee, Nicola Barnes, Gillian Hutchison, Paul Bishop, William Hamilton, Cliona C Kirwan and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rajiv V DaveNightingale Breast Cancer Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester.ORCID 0000-0001-6827-8090
Hannah BromleyNightingale Breast Cancer Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester.
Vicky P TaxiarchiDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research, and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Elizabeth CamachoDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research, and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Sumohan ChatterjeeNightingale Breast Cancer Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester.
Nicola BarnesNightingale Breast Cancer Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester.ORCID 0000-0002-3545-7209
Gillian HutchisonNightingale Breast Cancer Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester.
Paul BishopClinical Sciences, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester.
William HamiltonSt Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter.ORCID 0000-0003-1611-1373
Cliona C KirwanNightingale Breast Cancer Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester and Manchester Breast Centre, Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oglesby Cancer Research Building, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1725-4790
Ashu GandhiNightingale Breast Cancer Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester and Manchester Breast Centre, Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oglesby Cancer Research Building, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7264-6201
Wythenshawe Hospital · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen with breast pain constitute >20% of breast clinic attendees.

aimTo investigate breast cancer incidence in women presenting with breast pain and establish the health economics of referring women with breast pain to secondary care. DESIGN AND

settingA prospective cohort study of all consecutive women referred to a breast diagnostic clinic over 12 months.

methodWomen were categorised by presentation into four distinct clinical groups and cancer incidence investigated.

resultsOf 10 830 women, 1972 (18%) were referred with breast pain, 6708 (62%) with lumps, 480 (4%) with nipple symptoms, 1670 (15%) with 'other' symptoms. Mammography, performed in 1112 women with breast pain, identified cancer in eight (0.7%). Of the 1972 women with breast pain, breast cancer incidence was 0.4% compared with ∼5% in each of the three other clinical groups. Using 'breast lump' as reference, the odds ratio (OR) of women referred with breast pain having breast cancer was 0.05 (95% confidence interval = 0.02 to 0.09,

conclusionThis study shows that referring women with breast pain to a breast diagnostic clinic is an inefficient use of limited resources. Alternative management pathways could improve capacity and reduce financial burden.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMastodyniaCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansProspective StudiesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsState Medicinebreast neoplasmbreast paineconomicevaluatemastalgia

Identifiers

PMID34990395
PMCPMC8869188
OpenAlexW3214382041

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.