ArticleBreast cancer (Dove Medical Press)2025
A Comparative Analysis of Mobile versus Stationary Mammography Units: Performance and Outcomes in a Breast Cancer Screening Program.
Article in Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press), 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
Purpose: Breast cancer screening programs often encounter challenges related to high costs and limited accessibility, particularly in rural areas. Mobile mammography units (MMUs) have emerged as a potential solution to address these barriers. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of mammography screenings conducted in fixed units and MMUs, focusing on recall rates, follow-up adherence, and screen-detected breast cancer (BC) rates. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study analyzed data from 790 women aged 50-69 years who underwent mammography screening between January and February 2023. Participants were divided into two groups: group A (525 women, screened at fixed units) and group B (265 women, screened at MMUs). Key metrics included recall rates, biopsy rates, screen-detected BC rates, and refusal rates for follow-up evaluations. Statistical comparisons were made between the two groups to assess differences in outcomes. Results: In group A (mean age 58.8 ± 5.7 years), the recall rate was 6.1%, with 32 recalls, 8 biopsies, and 7 confirmed BC cases, yielding a screen-detected BC rate of 1.33%. In group B (mean age 59.6 ± 5.8 years), the recall rate was higher at 10.6%, with 28 recalls, 5 biopsies, and 3 BC cases, resulting in a screen-detected BC rate of 1.13%. Notably, refusal rates for follow-up evaluations were significantly higher in group B (42.9%) compared to group A (9%). Conclusion: While MMUs improve accessibility to underserved areas, they face challenges such as higher refusal rates for follow-up evaluations. The comparable screen-detected BC rates between MMUs and fixed units underscore the potential of combining both approaches in breast cancer screening programs. These findings highlight the importance of awareness campaigns to improve follow-up adherence and suggest that future research should focus on cost-effectiveness and sociocultural factors to optimize breast cancer prevention strategies.
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.