ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2022
A population health assessment of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality in North Carolina.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disparity in cancer literacy by socioeconomic status.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Cancer Burden in Persistent Poverty Areas across the Cancer Continuum: A Scoping Review to Identify Gaps and Opportunities for Future Research.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo identify predictors of screening mammography use and the effect of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality in North Carolina.
methodsThis cross-sectional study integrated publicly available data from government and private data repositories to model predictors of screening mammography and breast cancer mortality in North Carolina.
resultsIn North Carolina during 2008-2010, on average, 68.1% of women aged 40-74 years underwent a screening mammogram in the previous two years (range: 38.7%-82.1). The ordinary least squares (OLS) regression demonstrated counties experiencing persistent poverty have mammography screening rates that are 4.3% less, on average, than counties without persistent poverty (estimate (SE) = - 4.283 (2.105), p = 0.045). As the percentage of women with a college education increases, the mammography screening rates increase by approximately 0.3% (estimate (SE) = 0.319 (0.078), P < .001) and as the health literacy score increases, the mammography screening rate decreases by 0.3% (estimate (SE) = - 0.318 (0.104), p = 0.003). These variables explain 7.0% of the variability in mammographic screening rates. The OLS regression analysis demonstrated that age-adjusted breast cancer incidence (Estimate (SE) = 0.074 (0.024), p = 0.003) and health literacy score (estimate (SE) = - 0.175 (0.083), p = 0.039) are significantly related to breast cancer mortality.
conclusionsDemographic, socioeconomic, and environmental variables explain only a small percentage of the variability in the rates of screening mammography and breast cancer mortality in North Carolina. Advances in the available treatments are likely the major contributor to improving breast cancer mortality.
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.