Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9578859›Full record

Trial reportJournal of epidemiology and community health1998

Effect on attendance at breast cancer screening of adding a self administered questionnaire to the usual invitation to breast screening in southern England.

E Banks, A Richardson, V Beral, B Crossley, M Simmonds, E Hilton, R English, J Davis, J Austoker

Abstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study.International journal of epidemiology · 2019
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

E BanksImperial Cancer Research Fund, Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford.
A Richardson
V Beral
B Crossley
M Simmonds
E Hilton
R English
J Davis
J Austoker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectiveThe primary aim of the research described in this paper was to ascertain whether inclusion of a self administered questionnaire with the usual invitation to routine breast screening affected screening uptake. Secondary aims included establishing appropriate questionnaire distribution and collection methods within the framework of the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme and optimisation of questionnaire design.

designRandomised study.

settingOxfordshire and West of London Breast Screening Units. PARTICIPANTS/

methods6400 women invited for routine screening mammography were individually randomised to receive either the usual breast screening invitation alone, or to receive the usual invitation accompanied by a self administered questionnaire, to be returned at the time of screening. Participants were then followed up and attendance rates at screening were compared between groups. MAIN

resultsScreening attendance rates were similar in women who did and did not receive a questionnaire (71% in each group). Of those who were sent a questionnaire and attended for screening, 77% returned a completed questionnaire. Screening uptake was not affected by the way in which the questionnaire was returned or by whether or not personal details and signed permission for follow up were requested.

conclusionsThe inclusion of a self administered questionnaire accompanying the invitation to breast screening did not adversely affect screening uptake. A high proportion of women completed the questionnaire.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareBreast NeoplasmsEnglandFemaleHealth SurveysHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsState MedicineSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID9578859
PMCPMC1756668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.