Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36980754›Full record

ArticleCancers2023

Choice of Assessment and Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer among Women with False-Positive Mammography Screening.

Bayan Sardini, Susanne Fogh Jørgensen, Lisbet Brønsro Larsen, Mohammad Talal Elhakim, Sisse Helle Njor

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bayan SardiniDepartment of Public Health Programmes, University Research Clinic for Cancer Screening, Randers Regional Hospital, Skovlyvej 15, 8930 Randers, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8314-6878
Susanne Fogh JørgensenDepartment of Public Health Programmes, University Research Clinic for Cancer Screening, Randers Regional Hospital, Skovlyvej 15, 8930 Randers, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4534-0351
Lisbet Brønsro LarsenDepartment of Radiology, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense, Denmark.
Mohammad Talal ElhakimDepartment of Radiology, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2673-2352
Sisse Helle NjorDepartment of Public Health Programmes, University Research Clinic for Cancer Screening, Randers Regional Hospital, Skovlyvej 15, 8930 Randers, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0429-4176
Aarhus University · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKRegional Hospital Randers · DK

Funding

Helsefonden 16-B-0171The Health Research Fund of the Central Denmark Region A1518
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women with false-positive mammography screening results have a two- to four-fold higher risk of breast cancer. This study aimed to investigate if the subsequent risk of breast cancer after a false-positive mammography screening is associated with the received diagnostic assessment. The study population consisted of women who underwent false-positive mammography screening from January 2010 to June 2019. They were categorised into seven groups depending on the elements in the assessment (standard care: additional mammography, ultrasound, and if they had a relevant biopsy). Risks of interval cancer, next-round screen-detected cancer, and long-term breast cancer for non-standard care assessments were compared to standard care assessments using Binomial and Cox regression models. We included 44,279 women with a false-positive result. Invasive assessments that lacked an ultrasound or additional mammography were not more associated with an increased risk of subsequent cancers compared to that of 'all three elements'. The few assessments that included 'only ultrasound' or 'only mammography' resulted in higher relative risks of next-round screen-detected cancer of 1.52 (95% CI: 0.93-2.47) and 1.67 (95% CI: 0.54-5.16), respectively, compared to that of standard care. The increased subsequent risk of breast cancer among women with a previous false-positive result was not found to be correlated with the choice of elements in the assessment process.

Indexed as

breast cancerfalse-positivemammographyscreeningultrasound

Identifiers

PMID36980754
PMCPMC10046942
OpenAlexW4328119309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read32
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.