Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35511754›Full record

SynthesisCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2022

The Impact of Morbidity and Disability on Attendance at Organized Breast Cancer-Screening Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Lorna McWilliams, Samantha Groves, Sacha J Howell, David P French

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

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

Lorna McWilliams *Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Center for Health Psychology, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6414-2732
Samantha Groves *Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Center for Health Psychology, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3271-7295
Sacha J HowellNIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Center, Manchester Academic Health Science Center, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.ORCID 0000-0001-8141-6515
David P FrenchDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Center for Health Psychology, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7663-7804

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27859Cancer Research UK A29320Cancer Research UK C19941/A27859Department of Health IS-BRC-1215-200007Department of Health IS-BRC-1215-20007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individuals with morbidity experience worse breast cancer outcomes compared with those without. This meta-analysis assessed the impact of morbidity on breast cancer-screening attendance and subsequent early detection (PROSPERO pre-registration CRD42020204918). MEDLINE, PsychInfo, and CINAHL were searched. Included articles published from 1988 measured organized breast-screening mammography attendance using medical records by women with morbidity compared with those without. Morbidities were assigned to nine diagnostic clusters. Data were pooled using random-effects inverse meta-analyses to produce odds ratios (OR) for attendance. 25 study samples (28 articles) were included. Data were available from 17,755,075 individuals, including at least 1,408,246 participants with one or more conditions;16,250,556 had none. Individuals with any morbidity had lower odds of attending breast screening compared with controls [k = 25; OR, 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.81; P = <0.001; I2 = 99%]. Six morbidity clusters had lower odds of attendance. The lowest were for neurological, psychiatric, and disability conditions; ORs ranged from 0.45 to 0.59 compared with those without. Morbidity presents a clear barrier for breast-screening attendance, exacerbating health inequalities and, includes a larger number of conditions than previously identified. Consensus is required to determine a standardized approach on how best to identify those with morbidity and determine solutions for overcoming barriers to screening participation based on specific morbidity profiles.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMorbidity

Identifiers

PMID35511754
PMCPMC9377755

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.