The views of older women towards mammographic screening: a qualitative and quantitative study

Purpose: Mammographic screening has improved breast cancer survival in the screened age group. This improved survival has not been seen in older women (>70 years) where screening uptake is low. This study explores the views, knowledge and attitudes of older women towards screening. Methods: Women (>70) were interviewed about breast screening. Interview findings informed the development of a questionnaire which was sent to 1000 women (>70) to quantify their views regarding screening. Results: Twenty-six women were interviewed and a questionnaire designed. The questionnaire response rate was 48.3% (479/992). Over half (52.9%, 241/456) of respondents were unaware they could request mammography by voluntary self-referral and were unaware of how to arrange this. Most (81.5% 383/470) had not attended breast screening since turning 70. Most (75.6%, 343/454) felt screening was beneficial and would attend if invited. Most, (90.1%, 412/457) felt screening should be offered to all women regardless of age or health. Conclusions: There is a lack of knowledge about screening in older women. The majority felt that invitation to screening should be extended to the older age group regardless of age or health. The current under-utilised system of voluntary self referral is not supported by older women

Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening.

AbstractThis review investigated the relative performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) (alone or with full field digital mammography (FFDM) or synthetic digital mammography) compared with FFDM alone for detecting breast cancer lesions in asymptomatic women. A systematic review was carried out according to systematic reviewing principles provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. A protocol was developed a priori. The review was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42014013949). Searches were undertaken in October 2014. Following selection, five studies were eligible. Higher cancer detection rates were observed when comparing DBT + FFDM with FFDM in two European studies: the summary difference per 1000 screens was 2.43 (95% CI: 1.8 to 3.1). Both European studies found lower false positive rates for individual readers. One found a lower recall rate based on conditional recall. The second study was not designed to compare post-arbitration recall rates between FFDM and DBT + FFDM. One European study presented data on interval cancer rates; sensitivity and specificity for DBT + FFDM were both higher compared to FFDM. One large multicentre US study showed a higher cancer detection rate for DBT + FFDM, while two smaller US studies did not find statistically significant differences. Reductions in recall and false positive rates were observed in the US studies in favour of DBT + FFDM. In comparison to FFDM, DBT, as an adjunct to FFDM, has a higher cancer detection rate, increasing the effectiveness of breast cancer screening. Additional benefits of DBT may also include reduced recalls and, consequently, reduced costs and distress caused to women who would have been recalled

Ghostwriting at Elite Academic Medical Centers in the United States

Jeffrey Lacasse and Jonathan Leo assess ghostwriting policies at 50 academic medical centers in the United States and find that only 10 explicitly prohibit ghostwriting

Role of mammography screening as a predictor of survival in postmenopausal breast cancer patients

We examined the effect of population-based screening programme on tumour characteristics by comparing carcinomas diagnosed during the prescreening (N=341) and screening (N=552) periods. We identified screen detected (N=224), interval (N=99) and clinical cancer (N=229) cases. Median tumour size and proportion of axillary lymph node negative cases were 1.5 cm and 65% in the screen detected group, 2.0 cm and 44% in cases found outside the screening, and 3.2 cm and 41% in the cases from the prescreening period. Survival of the breast cancer patients was 66% (95% CI, 60–71%) in the prescreening era group and 73% (95% CI, 66–78%) in the screening era group after 10 years of follow-up. In the screening era group the survival of the screen detected cases was 86% (95% CI, 80–90%) and that of the clinical cancer cases 73% (95% CI, 66–78%) after 10 years. In multivariate analysis the risk of breast cancer death was not significantly different between the prescreening and screening periods (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.59–1.12, P=0.21). Detection by screening was not an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analysis (HR 0.75; CI 95% 0.50–1.12; P=0.17)

Public Availability of Published Research Data in High-Impact Journals

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest to make primary data from published research publicly available. We aimed to assess the current status of making research data available in highly-cited journals across the scientific literature. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed the first 10 original research papers of 2009 published in the 50 original research journals with the highest impact factor. For each journal we documented the policies related to public availability and sharing of data. Of the 50 journals, 44 (88%) had a statement in their instructions to authors related to public availability and sharing of data. However, there was wide variation in journal requirements, ranging from requiring the sharing of all primary data related to the research to just including a statement in the published manuscript that data can be available on request. Of the 500 assessed papers, 149 (30%) were not subject to any data availability policy. Of the remaining 351 papers that were covered by some data availability policy, 208 papers (59%) did not fully adhere to the data availability instructions of the journals they were published in, most commonly (73%) by not publicly depositing microarray data. The other 143 papers that adhered to the data availability instructions did so by publicly depositing only the specific data type as required, making a statement of willingness to share, or actually sharing all the primary data. Overall, only 47 papers (9%) deposited full primary raw data online. None of the 149 papers not subject to data availability policies made their full primary data publicly available. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of original research papers published in high-impact journals are either not subject to any data availability policies, or do not adhere to the data availability instructions in their respective journals. This empiric evaluation highlights opportunities for improvement

Thoracic aortopathy in Turner syndrome and the influence of bicuspid aortic valves and blood pressure: a CMR study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p/> <p>To investigate aortic dimensions in women with Turner syndrome (TS) in relation to aortic valve morphology, blood pressure, karyotype, and clinical characteristics.</p> <p>Methods and results</p> <p>A cross sectional study of 102 women with TS (mean age 37.7; 18-62 years) examined by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR- successful in 95), echocardiography, and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure. Aortic diameters were measured by CMR at 8 positions along the thoracic aorta. Twenty-four healthy females were recruited as controls. In TS, aortic dilatation was present at one or more positions in 22 (23%). Aortic diameter in women with TS and bicuspid aortic valve was significantly larger than in TS with tricuspid valves in both the ascending (32.4 ± 6.7 vs. 26.0 ± 4.4 mm; p < 0.001) and descending (21.4 ± 3.5 vs. 18.8 ± 2.4 mm; p < 0.001) aorta. Aortic diameter correlated to age (R = 0.2 - 0.5; p < 0.01), blood pressure (R = 0.4; p < 0.05), a history of coarctation (R = 0.3; p = 0.01) and bicuspid aortic valve (R = 0.2-0.5; p < 0.05). Body surface area only correlated with descending aortic diameter (R = 0.23; p = 0.024).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p/> <p>Aortic dilatation was present in 23% of adult TS women, where aortic valve morphology, age and blood pressure were major determinants of the aortic diameter.</p

Long term productivity and collaboration in information science

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Springer in Scientometrics on 02/07/2016, available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2061-8 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Funding bodies have tended to encourage collaborative research because it is generally more highly cited than sole author research. But higher mean citation for collaborative articles does not imply collaborative researchers are in general more research productive. This article assesses the extent to which research productivity varies with the number of collaborative partners for long term researchers within three Web of Science subject areas: Information Science & Library Science, Communication and Medical Informatics. When using the whole number counting system, researchers who worked in groups of 2 or 3 were generally the most productive, in terms of producing the most papers and citations. However, when using fractional counting, researchers who worked in groups of 1 or 2 were generally the most productive. The findings need to be interpreted cautiously, however, because authors that produce few academic articles within a field may publish in other fields or leave academia and contribute to society in other ways

Knowledge and attitudes of primary health care physicians and nurses with regard to population screening for colorectal cancer in Balearic Islands and Barcelona

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Primary health care (PHC) professionals play a key role in population screening of colorectal cancer. The purposes of the study are: to assess knowledge and attitudes among PHC professionals with regard to colorectal cancer screening, as well as the factors that determine their support for such screening.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Questionnaire-based survey of PHC physicians and nurses in the Balearic Islands and in a part of the metropolitan area of Barcelona.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We collected 1,219 questionnaires. About 84% of all professionals believe that screening for colorectal cancer by fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is effective. Around 68% would recommend to their clients a colorectal cancer screening program based on FOBT and colonoscopy. About 31% are reluctant or do not know. Professionals perceive the fear of undergoing a colonoscopy as the main obstacle in getting patients to participate, and the invasive nature of this test is the main reason behind their resistance to this program. The main barriers to support the screening program among PHC professionals are lack of knowledge (nurses) and lack of time (physicians). On multivariate analysis, the factors associated with reluctance to recommend colorectal cancer screening were: believing that FOBT has poor sensitivity and is complicated; that colonoscopy is an invasive procedure; that a lack of perceived benefit could discourage client participation; that only a minority of clients would participate; thinking that clients are fed up with screening tests and being unaware if they should be offered something to ensure their participation in the programme.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Two in every three PHC professionals would support a population screening program for colorectal cancer screening. Factors associated with reluctance to recommend it were related with screening tests characteristics as sensitivity and complexity of FOBT, and also invasive feature of colonoscopy. Other factors were related with patients' believes.</p