Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35763979›Full record

ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2022

A systematic assessment of online international breast density information.

Brooke Nickel, Tessa Copp, Tong Li, Hankiz Dolan, Meagan Brennan, Angela Verde, Lisa Vaccaro, Kirsten McCaffery, Nehmat Houssami

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Reporting breast density on chest computed tomography.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2023
    Review
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

9 authors.

Brooke NickelWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: brooke.nickel@sydney.edu.au.
Tessa CoppWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Tong LiThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Hankiz DolanWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Meagan BrennanThe University of Notre Dame Australia, School of Medicine Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Angela VerdeBreast Cancer Network Australia, Melbourne, Australia.
Lisa VaccaroHealth Consumers New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Discipline of Behavioural and Social Sciences in Health, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Kirsten McCafferyWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Nehmat HoussamiWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast density has become a topic of international discussion due to its associated risk of breast cancer. As online is often a primary source of women's health information it is therefore essential that breast density information it is understandable, accurate and reflects the best available evidence. This study aimed to systematically assess online international breast density information including recommendations to women.

methodsSearches were conducted from five different English-speaking country-specific Google locations. Relevant breast density information was extracted from the identified websites. Readability was assessed using the SHeLL Editor, and understandability and actionability using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). A content analysis of specific recommendations to women was also conducted.

resultsForty-two eligible websites were identified and systematically assessed. The included informational content varied across websites. The average grade reading level across all websites was 12.4 (range 8.9-15.4). The mean understandability was 69.9% and the mean actionability was 40.1%, with 18/42 and 39/42 websites respectively scoring lower than adequate (70%). Thirty-six (85.7%) of the websites had breast density-related recommendation to women, with 'talk to your doctor' (n = 33, 78.6%) the most common.

conclusionsOnline information about breast density varies widely and is not generally presented in a way that women can easily understand and act on, therefore greatly reducing the ability for informed decision-making. International organisations and groups disseminating breast density information need to ensure that women are presented with health literacy-sensitive and balanced information, and be aware of the impact that recommendations may have on practice.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsHealth LiteracyBreast DensityComprehensionFemaleHumansInternetBreast densityHealth literacyInformationInternationalOnlineWomen's health

Identifiers

PMID35763979
PMCPMC9240362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.