Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9734786›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine1998

Using an office system intervention to increase breast cancer screening.

L S Kinsinger, R Harris, B Qaqish, V Strecher, A Kaluzny

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Organizational factors and the cancer screening process.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2010
    Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

L S KinsingerDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.
R Harris
B Qaqish
V Strecher
A Kaluzny
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

NORTH CAROLINA CANCER EARLY DETECTION PROGRAMR01CA054343 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KALUZNY, ARNOLD D · 1991 to 1994
–
NCI NIH HHS CA 54343-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate an innovative approach to continuing medical education, an outreach intervention designed to improve performance rates of breast cancer screening through implementation of office systems in community primary care practices.

designRandomized, controlled trial with primary care practices assigned to either the intervention group or control group, with the practice as the unit of analysis.

settingTwenty mostly rural counties in North Carolina.

participantsPhysicians and staff of 62 randomly selected family medicine and general internal medicine practices, primarily fee-for-service, half group practices and half solo practitioners.

interventionPhysician investigators and facilitators met with practice physicians and staff over a period of 12 to 18 months to provide feedback on breast cancer screening performance, and to assist these primary care practices in developing office systems tailored to increase breast cancer screening. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsPhysician questionnaires were obtained at baseline and follow-up to assess the presence of five indicators of an office system. Three of the five indicators of office systems increased significantly more in intervention practices than in control practices, but the mean number of indicators in intervention practices at followup was only 2.8 out of 5. Cross-sectional reviews of randomly chosen medical records of eligible women patients aged 50 years and over were done at baseline (n = 2,887) and follow-up (n = 2,874) to determine whether clinical breast examinations and mammography, were performed. Results for mammography were recorded in two ways, mention of the test in the visit note and actual report of the test in the medical record. These reviews showed an increase from 39% to 51% in mention of mammography in intervention practices, compared with an increase from 41% to 44% in control practices (p = .01). There was no significant difference, however, between the two groups in change in mammograms reported (intervention group increased from 28% to 32.7%; control group increased from 30.6% to 34.0%, p = .56). There was a nonsignificant trend (p = .06) toward a greater increase in performance of clinical breast examination in intervention versus control practices.

conclusionsA moderately intensive outreach intervention to increase rates of breast cancer screening through the development of office systems was modestly successful in increasing indicators of office systems and in documenting mention of mammography, but had little impact on actual performance of breast cancer screening. At follow-up, few practices had a complete office system for breast cancer screening. Outreach approaches to assist primary care practices implement office systems are promising but need further development.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningPractice Management, MedicalAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelBreast NeoplasmsCommunity MedicineConfidence IntervalsCross-Sectional StudiesEducation, Medical, ContinuingFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMammographyMiddle AgedNorth CarolinaOdds Ratio

Identifiers

PMID9734786
PMCPMC1497003
OpenAlexW2080693544

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.