Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38469133›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2024

Overweight and obese women's symptoms, knowledge, and preferences regarding endometrial biopsy for endometrial cancer detection: A threshold technique survey.

Anna L Beavis, Zishan Hirani, Tullia Rushton, Mary Catherine Rush, Amanda N Fader, Gayane Yenokyan, Anne F Rositch

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Rural patients' experiences with diagnosis and treatment of endometrial cancer.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Article
  2. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anna L BeavisThe Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Zishan HiraniDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Tullia RushtonThe Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Mary Catherine RushDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Amanda N FaderThe Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Gayane YenokyanJohns Hopkins Biostatistics Center, Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Anne F RositchDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Johns Hopkins University · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The incidence of endometrial cancer (EC) in the United States continues to rise, driven mainly by the obesity epidemic. We sought to determine overweight and obese women's cancer risk knowledge and preferences regarding diagnostic endometrial biopsy (EMB) for EC detection. Methods: An online survey was administered to overweight and obese women without EC recruited through the electronic medical record's online patient portal. Baseline questions queried gynecologic history, cancer risk knowledge, and factors potentially influencing decision-making for EMB. We used the threshold survey technique to identify the minimum acceptable risk (MAR) threshold at which each respondent would be willing to undergo an EMB to detect EC. Results: Of 357 respondents (median age 45 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 38-54); median BMI 39 [IQR: 36.0-44.6]), fewer than half (48.7 %) were aware that obesity is a risk factor for EC, and 10 % considered their risk of EC to be high. Almost half (42 %) of respondents reported MAR thresholds characterized as very low (0-1 %), and these were more common among respondents with higher BMIs. Forty percent identified their weight as a factor influencing their MAR threshold decision, while 76 % identified their perceived personal risk as a factor. Less than half cited immediate risks of the procedure. Conclusion: Many patients reported being willing to undergo an EMB at very low risk thresholds for EC. Perceived personal risk is a stronger factor in decision-making than immediate procedural risks. Providers should focus on communicating patients' risk to motivate EMB to detect EC where appropriate.

Indexed as

Early detectionEndometrial cancerObesityScreening and preventionThreshold technique

Identifiers

PMID38469133
PMCPMC10925928
OpenAlexW4392343407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.