ArticleBreast care (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Large-Scale Population Screening for
Article in Breast care (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In March 2020, a nationwide population carrier screening for Methods: An online survey was distributed to clinical geneticists and genetic counselors. Results: The participants' impression was that most carriers did not comprehend the implications of a positive result when deciding to take the test. Some carriers, in retrospect, regretted taking it. Some had a known mutation carrier in the family, and some had a family history that justified a broader test (and so should not have been tested through the screening program). Eight survey participants (29%) reported they were initially against the screening program, but half of them are currently in favor of it. Most participants are unsatisfied with the way the screening is conducted and suggested various improvements. Emotional distress of carriers, as assessed by participants, was higher for those detected by the screening program, compared to those tested after oncogenetic counseling. No association was found between the age, profession, and prior experience of participants and their responses. Conclusions: While the general attitude toward the screening program is positive, most professionals feel the need to improve the current screening program by defining exclusion criteria, providing comprehensive pretest information and adding other BRCA1/2 founder mutations, as well as expanding the screening to include ethnicities other than Ashkenazi Jews.
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.