ArticleBMC public health2025
Delays in follow-up among women with abnormal results: a retrospective study based on population-based breast cancer screening programme in China.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hospital follow-up adherence among screen-positive lung cancer utilizing a mobile LDCT in community in Hainan, China: a prospective cohort study.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTimely diagnostic follow-up subsequent to abnormal results is crucial for the efficacy of breast cancer screening programs. We aimed to identify the frequency and women-level factors of loss or delay in the follow-up for screening abnormalities in China.
methodsThis mixed-methods cohort study comprised a retrospective analysis of ultrasound based breast screening data collected from Boluo (site A), Lilin (site B), and Ordos (site C) in China from 2018 to 2021, and qualitative, semistructured interviews conducted with program leaders from the three local Maternal and Child Health (MCH) hospitals, respectively. According to the screening protocol, we assessed the follow-up of two screening results: (1) mammography after suspicious results in the ultrasound and (2) biopsy after positive results in the ultrasound or supplement mammography. The rates and timeliness of follow-up with diagnostic examinations were compared across the different sites and procedures, and logistic regression was employed to explore the women-level factors influencing failure or delay in follow-up.
resultsOf 7,939 women with abnormal screening results, 5,943 (74.86%) received final diagnostic tests, while 4,631 (58.33%) got final diagnosis timely. The follow-up rate for mammography was higher than that for biopsy. Site A performed better in follow-up, with an overall follow-up rate of 98.01%, which may be related to the provision of free biopsy services and the establishment of a robust referral system. Women aged 45 to 54 years (ref: 35-44 years; aOR = 1.18; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.38; P = 0.032) were more likely to be lost to follow-up. Women who had never attended breast screening (ref: ever screened; aOR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.32; P = 0.046) were at high risk for delayed follow-up. Conversely, women with a high level of education (aOR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.59, 0.73; P < 0.001) and those with abnormal clinical breast examination results (ref: with normal results; aOR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.92; P = 0.002) were more likely to get timely follow-up.
conclusionsThe overall follow-up rate and quality among women with abnormal screening results showed significant regional variability, and still required to be improved. Moreover, women with higher age and lower educational levels were particularly at high risk for delayed follow-up care and deserved more attention.
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.