Literature DB >> 17404352

Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms.

Noel T Brewer1, Talya Salz, Sarah E Lillie.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although abnormal screening mammograms deleteriously affect the psychological well-being of women during the time immediately surrounding the tests, their long-term effects are poorly understood.
PURPOSE: To characterize the long-term effects of false-positive screening mammograms on the behavior and well-being of women 40 years of age or older. DATA SOURCES: English-language studies from the MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases through August 2006. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were identified that examined the effects of false-positive results of routine screening mammography on women's behavior, well-being, or beliefs. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently coded study characteristics, quality, and effect sizes. DATA SYNTHESIS: 23 eligible studies (n = 313,967) were identified. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that U.S. women who received false-positive results on screening mammography were more likely to return for routine screening than those who received normal results (risk ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.02 to 1.12]). The effect was not statistically significant among European women (risk ratio, 0.97 [CI, 0.93 to 1.01]), and Canadian women were less likely to return for routine screening because of false-positive results (risk ratio, 0.63 [CI, 0.50 to 0.80]). Women who received false-positive results conducted more frequent breast self-examinations and had higher, but not apparently pathologically elevated, levels of distress and anxiety and thought more about breast cancer than did those with normal results. LIMITATIONS: Correlational study designs, a small number of studies, a lack of clinical validation for many measures, and possible heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: Some women with false-positive results on mammography may have differences in whether they return for mammography, occurrence of breast self-examinations, and levels of anxiety compared with women with normal results. Future research should examine how false-positive results on mammography affect other outcomes, such as trust and health care use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17404352     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-7-200704030-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  125 in total

1.  The impact of radiologists' expertise on screen results decisions in a CT lung cancer screening trial.

Authors:  Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Matthijs Oudkerk; Pim A de Jong; Willem P Mali; Harry J M Groen; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Listening to Women: Expectations and Experiences in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Susan Harvey; Aimee M Gallagher; Martha Nolan; Christine M Hughes
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  A qualitative study of lung cancer risk perceptions and smoking beliefs among national lung screening trial participants.

Authors:  Elyse R Park; Joanna M Streck; Ilana F Gareen; Jamie S Ostroff; Kelly A Hyland; Nancy A Rigotti; Hannah Pajolek; Mark Nichter
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2013-09-02       Impact factor: 4.244

4.  Psychological distress, social withdrawal, and coping following receipt of an abnormal mammogram among different ethnicities: a mediation model.

Authors:  Yamile Molina; Shirley A A Beresford; Noah Espinoza; Beti Thompson
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.172

Review 5.  The psychological harms of screening: the evidence we have versus the evidence we need.

Authors:  Jessica T DeFrank; Colleen Barclay; Stacey Sheridan; Noel T Brewer; Meredith Gilliam; Andrew M Moon; William Rearick; Carolyn Ziemer; Russell Harris
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  The costs and benefits of automatic estimated glomerular filtration rate reporting.

Authors:  Julia R den Hartog; Peter P Reese; Borut Cizman; Harold I Feldman
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2009-01-28       Impact factor: 8.237

7.  High-resolution, low-dose phase contrast X-ray tomography for 3D diagnosis of human breast cancers.

Authors:  Yunzhe Zhao; Emmanuel Brun; Paola Coan; Zhifeng Huang; Aniko Sztrókay; Paul Claude Diemoz; Susanne Liebhardt; Alberto Mittone; Sergei Gasilov; Jianwei Miao; Alberto Bravin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes associated with a false positive ovarian cancer screening test result.

Authors:  Amanda T Wiggins; Edward J Pavlik; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-04-21

9.  Patient-Centered Outcomes Related to Imaging Testing in US Primary Care.

Authors:  Monica L Zigman Suchsland; Elizabeth Witwer; Anjali R Truitt; Danielle C Lavallee; Ying Zhang; Philip Posner; Brian Do; Patrick M Bossuyt; Victoria Hardy; Matthew J Thompson
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 5.532

10.  Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer-aided detection: a population-based study of medicare enrollees.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Guibo Xing; Joann G Elmore; Heejung Bang; Steven L Chen; Karen K Lindfors; Laura-Mae Baldwin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.