Literature DB >> 18254010

Interventions for relieving the pain and discomfort of screening mammography.

D Miller1, V Livingstone, P Herbison.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The pain of mammography is recognised as a significant deterrent for women considering this examination, and may affect participation in breast screening.
OBJECTIVES: To review interventions to reduce or relieve the pain and discomfort of screening mammography. SEARCH STRATEGY: For this update, the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register was searched on the 18th May 2006. Other databases searched were MEDLINE (1966 to November 2006), CINAHL (1982 to December 2006), EMBASE (1988 to 2006) and reference lists of articles. We also searched Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com, accessed September 2007) and the UK National Research Register (www.update-software.com/national/, accessed September 2007) for ongoing and completed research projects. Researchers in the field were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials with a comparison group were considered. Studies had to include assessment of pain or discomfort and, if the intervention could have impacted on the quality of the mammograms, an assessment of image quality was also required. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (DM and VL) reviewed identified studies to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria. Each study was reviewed for quality, including concealment and generation of allocation sequence, comparability between groups at baseline, inclusion of all randomised participants in analysis and blinding after allocation. Data extraction was performed by these two authors. MAIN
RESULTS: Seven RCTs, involving 1671 women were identified for inclusion. The review found that giving women information about the procedure prior to the mammogram may reduce pain and discomfort. Increasing women's control over breast compression could reduce pain experienced during the procedure, though mammogram image quality was only maintained if the technologist controlled the first compression. If the technologist reduced compression force of the mammogram, discomfort experienced was unchanged. The use of breast cushions reduced pain of mammography; however, image quality was impaired in 2% of women in the intervention group. Acetoaminophen as a premedication did not affect discomfort of mammography. Differences in interventions, and inconsistency in measures, validation of pain scales, and in assessment of mammogram quality, mean that results of these studies cannot be combined. All results are based on single studies. Further research is required. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Currently there are very few proven interventions to reduce pain and discomfort of screening mammography, especially procedures that can be readily introduced to screening programmes. With mammography continuing as the preferred method for breast screening, more research on such interventions is needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18254010      PMCID: PMC8989268          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002942.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  24 in total

1.  Editorial commentary: Screening mammography.

Authors:  Walter Lawrence
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.454

2.  Impact of women's experiences during mammography on adherence to rescreening (United States).

Authors:  Lucy A Peipins; Jean A Shapiro; Janet Kay Bobo; Zahava Berkowitz
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.506

3.  Effect of NHS breast screening programme on mortality from breast cancer in England and Wales, 1990-8: comparison of observed with predicted mortality.

Authors:  R G Blanks; S M Moss; C E McGahan; M J Quinn; P J Babb
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-09-16

Review 4.  Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche; Margrethe Nielsen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-01-19

5.  Clinical assessment of a radiolucent cushion for mammography.

Authors:  L Tabar; G S Lebovic; G D Hermann; C S Kaufman; C Alexander; J Sayre
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.990

6.  Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement.

Authors:  E Kremer; J H Atkinson; R J Ignelzi
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1981-04       Impact factor: 6.961

7.  [Mammography-related pain and anxiety].

Authors:  Emel Alimoğlu; Mustafa Kemal Alimoğlu; Adnan Kabaalioğlu; Kağan Ceken; Ali Apaydin; Ersin Lüleci
Journal:  Tani Girisim Radyol       Date:  2004-09

Review 8.  Interventions for relieving the pain and discomfort of screening mammography.

Authors:  D Miller; I Martin; P Herbison
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2002

9.  Impact of patient-controlled compression on the mammography experience.

Authors:  P J Kornguth; B K Rimer; M R Conaway; D C Sullivan; K E Catoe; A L Stout; J S Brackett
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Once is enough--why some women do not continue to participate in a breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  M Elwood; B McNoe; T Smith; M Bandaranayake; T C Doyle
Journal:  N Z Med J       Date:  1998-05-22
View more
  11 in total

1.  Patient Barriers to Mammography Identified During a Reminder Program.

Authors:  Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; A Gabriela Rosales; Jennifer Schneider; Mary M Rix; Russell E Glasgow
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Effects of Reduced Compression in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis on Pain, Anxiety, and Image Quality.

Authors:  Siti Aishah Abdullah Suhaimi; Afifah Mohamed; Mahadir Ahmad; Kanaga Kumari Chelliah
Journal:  Malays J Med Sci       Date:  2015-11

3.  Age differences in mammography screening reconsidered: life course trajectories in 13 European countries.

Authors:  Sarah Missinne; Piet Bracke
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2014-07-04       Impact factor: 3.367

4.  Mammography in females with an implanted medical device: impact on image quality, pain and anxiety.

Authors:  Ellen Paap; Marloes Witjes; Cary van Landsveld-Verhoeven; Ruud M Pijnappel; Angela H E M Maas; Mireille J M Broeders
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Influence of Discomfort Tolerance of Women who Undergo Mammography on the Perceived Pain Intensity Due to the Procedure.

Authors:  Neriman Akansel; Muaz Gülşen; Muhammed Gültaş
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2020-12-24

6.  Pain-preventing strategies in mammography: an observational study of simultaneously recorded pain and breast mechanics throughout the entire breast compression cycle.

Authors:  Jerry E de Groot; Mireille J M Broeders; Cornelis A Grimbergen; Gerard J den Heeten
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2015-03-15       Impact factor: 2.809

7.  Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality.

Authors:  Mireille J M Broeders; Marloes Ten Voorde; Wouter J H Veldkamp; Ruben E van Engen; Cary van Landsveld-Verhoeven; Machteld N L 't Jong-Gunneman; Jos de Win; Kitty Droogh-de Greve; Ellen Paap; Gerard J den Heeten
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Client and practitioner perspectives on the screening mammography experience.

Authors:  P Whelehan; A Evans; G Ozakinci
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 2.520

9.  The impact of regional screening policies on the diffusion of cancer screening participation in Belgium: time trends in educational inequalities in Flanders and Wallonia.

Authors:  Barbara Willems; Piet Bracke
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Lifetime utilization of mammography among Maltese women: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Danika Marmarà; Vincent Marmarà; Gill Hubbard
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.