ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2025
Supplemental breast cancer screening after negative mammography in US women with dense breasts.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of population based breast density notification: multisite parallel arm randomised controlled trial in BreastScreen.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Trial
- Supplemental Breast Ultrasound in Mammography Screening for Women with Critically Dense Breasts.Cancers · 2026Article
- Polychlorinated biphenyls and breast cancer: evidence, mechanisms, and risk management.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byBeyond the2025
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The extent and determinants of supplemental screening among women with dense breasts are unclear. We evaluated a retrospective cohort of 498 855 women aged 40-74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts who obtained 1 176 251 negative screening mammography examinations during 2011-2019 in the United States. Overall, 2.8% and 0.3% of mammograms had supplemental ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 1 year, respectively. Onsite availability was associated with ultrasound (odds ratio [OR] = 4.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.21 to 4.49) but not MRI (OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.04). Facility academic affiliation and for-profit status were inversely associated with supplemental ultrasound (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.57, and OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.81 to 0.86, respectively) and positively associated with supplemental MRI (OR = 3.04, 95% CI = 2.86 to 3.46, and OR = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.12, respectively). Supplemental screening was more likely to occur after passage of state-specific density notification laws than before passage (OR = 3.56, 95% CI = 3.30 to 3.84, and OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.60 to 2.00, respectively). These results show that supplemental breast imaging utilization has been uncommon and was related to facility factors and density legislation.
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.