ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2025
Accuracy of self-reported exam indications for breast cancer screening.
Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We validated updated National Health Interview Survey questions on mammography indications compared with electronic health records (EHRs). We asked 244 Kaiser Permanente Washington members ages 40-74 years and eligible for breast cancer screening to self-report their most recent mammogram reason by using a series of new hierarchical yes/no questions. We first asked if they had the mammogram because of a health problem, then as a follow-up test, and last for screening. We compared self-reported reasons with 2 EHR datasets: procedure/diagnostic codes and radiologist-defined indications. Self-reported exams for a health problem had 89.2% agreement with codes and 92.2% agreement with radiologist-defined indications. Self-reported exams for follow-up had 87.5% agreement with codes and 89.3% agreement with radiologist-defined indications. Self-reported exams for screening had 91.4% agreement with codes and 95.7% agreement with radiologist-defined indications. Self-reported mammogram indications have good agreement with procedure/diagnostic codes and radiologist-reported indications, when asked using this novel hierarchical approach.
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.