Crafting a literature review on breast cancer screening is an intricate task that demands meticulous

research, critical analysis, and synthesis of existing literature. It involves sifting through numerous
scholarly articles, studies, and research papers to identify relevant information, key findings, and
gaps in current knowledge.

Navigating through the vast sea of literature can be daunting, requiring both time and expertise.
Furthermore, ensuring coherence, clarity, and objectivity in presenting the review adds another layer
of complexity. From defining search criteria to evaluating the credibility of sources and organizing
the information in a structured manner, every step demands attention to detail and precision.

For those facing challenges in writing a literature review on breast cancer screening, seeking
professional assistance can be immensely beneficial. ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ offers specialized services
tailored to meet your specific needs. Our team of experienced writers and researchers possesses the
expertise to conduct comprehensive literature reviews, adhering to academic standards and
guidelines.

By availing our services, you can save time, alleviate stress, and ensure the quality of your literature
review. Whether you need assistance in topic selection, literature search, data synthesis, or writing
and editing, ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ is your trusted partner in academic excellence. Place your order
today and experience the difference our expertise can make in your research endeavors.
We also manually searched the references of key articles, reviews, meta-analyses, and practice
recommendations. However, this is a very active research area, and ongoing review of high-quality
evidence is warranted. Overall, despite differences between risk assessment tools and study cohorts,
most risk tools were able to identify a group of women with the highest risk of breast cancer, with
only a few exceptions (Chen v1, ER-, KREA, KRKR and the original Korean model). Guidelines
recommend individualizing screening decisions, particularly for younger women. As such, it was
possible for a single study to have multiple overall risk of bias assessments. Surveillance,
Epidemiology, and End Results Program website.. 2013. Accessed January 17, 2014. 2. US
Preventive Services Task Force. Cancer Registry of Norway website.. 2012. Accessed January 21,
2014. 5. American Cancer Society. Sharp-tailed Snakes do not have venom that is dangerous to most
humans. Decision aids have the potential to help patients integrate information about risks and
benefits with their own values and priorities, although they are not yet widely available for use in
clinical practice. The search strategy identified a total of 5114 records of which 3405 remained after
duplicates were removed. Some trials have demonstrated that mammography is associated with
decreased breast cancer mortality, but these data and increasing evidence about the harms of
mammography screening have generated controversy. Elise enjoys the outdoors, gardening, and
spending time with her family. Yet much health care is involved with regard to this reproductive and
sexual organ. A native of the Capital Region, Elise earned her bachelor’s degree in marketing from
Siena College. So if additional imaging is needed, it can be performed during the same visit. To
estimate the number of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ
(DCIS) (column 1), we used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) estimates from a
recent review by Welch and Passow. 16, 17 The numbers of breast cancer deaths over 15 years
(column 2) use Welch and Passow’s estimates of the 15-year risks of dying of breast cancer in a
screened population. To assist with comparison of studies, the x-axis shows the percentile
distribution of groups being reported, with data points shown for the mid-points of each group. Risk
models and decision aids are useful tools, but more research is needed to optimize these and to
further quantify overdiagnosis. Then don’t wait till the third year to start the work. This whole
process can be very anxiety provoking for the patient, and oftentimes unnecessarily so. Please let us
know what you think of our products and services. About 19% of the cancers diagnosed during that
10-year period would not have become clinically apparent without screening (overdiagnosis),
although there is uncertainty about this estimate. A more recent study among US women 75 years or
older administered a paper decision aid just before a primary care encounter. Am J Prev Med.
2002;22(4):247-257. PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 74. Albada. We conducted a systematic
review assessing the accuracy of questionnaire-based risk assessment tools for this purpose. Extra
imaging is sometimes needed to focus in on a certain area, just like when you zoom in on a picture to
see it better. National Health Service (NHS) Breast Cancer Screening Programme. J Health
Commun. 2004;9(4):327-335. PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 31. Barrett. The numbers reported
below are estimates based on what most experts consider the best available evidence, but uncertainty
about these estimates remains. Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article
numbers instead of page numbers.
Patient Educ Couns. 2003;50(2):123-132. PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 72. Lipkus. From 525
articles identified, 20 meta-analyses met these criteria. Outcomes with multiple time points (e.g., 5-
and 10-year risk predictions) were assessed separately because ratings for signalling questions on
appropriate time interval between predictor assessment and outcome determination, and reasonable
number of participants with outcome, could differ. She brings several years of experience in both the
marketing and not-for-profit industry. Where data for observed incidence of breast cancer per risk
category was provided by authors or calculated by reviewers from calibration figures, this was used
to inform our ratings. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2010. 85. Welch. Blue circles
show the corresponding observed rate of breast cancers within the study group, indicating the
gradient of rates across the risk groups (expected to increase from left to right in accordance with
increases in estimated breast cancer risk). All articles are cleared by an editor, but not necessarily by
Doctor Higgins himself. Ten of the 13 articles were from North America and Europe and compared
more than two risk assessment tools based on a 5-year risk prediction interval. Does her race or
genetic history suggest we should screen earlier?'”. In this review we focused on studies that
assessed more than one risk assessment tool on one or more populations, how those tools compared
to each other and what overall observations could be drawn by assessing these studies collectively.
Velentzis LS, Freeman V, Campbell D, Hughes S, Luo Q, Steinberg J, Egger S, Mann GB, Nickson
C. While most tools identified a risk group with higher rates of observed cancers, few tools
identified lower-risk groups across different settings. In addition, where a tool version remained
unclear after contacting authors and major updates to risk predictors had occurred between versions,
the tool was excluded. So it really doesn’t make sense to wait to screen just because you don’t know
of breast cancer in the last few generations. “And with the increasing use of 3-D mammograms, the
false-positive rate has decreased,” Dr. McIntosh said. “Primary care physicians are encouraged to
continue referring patients for screening.”. While that means that a subset of patients and providers
will feel obligated to default to the USPSTF recommendations, it would be wrong to assume that
these are the absolute best recommendations for every woman in America (though it's important to
know that by law all health insurances are required to cover annual screening starting at age 40). Due
to the need for sufficient follow-up between risk assessment and cancer outcomes, we included
prospective or retrospective cohort studies (based on timing of risk predictor data collection in
relation to outcome occurrence). Consequently, mid-range risk groups would be expected to include
?50% of the study cohort. 4. Assessment of whether lowest-risk women could be distinguished
from women at more moderate-risk. Making a Decision About Mammography Experts recommend
that women aged 50 to 74 years undergo a screening mammogram every 2 years. About 19% of the
cancers diagnosed during that 10-year period would not have become clinically apparent without
screening (overdiagnosis), although there is uncertainty about this estimate. J Womens Health
(Larchmt). 2011;20(6):845-852. PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 30. Hanoch. Health Commun.
2001;13(2):205-226. PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 73. Rimer. Journal of Manufacturing and
Materials Processing (JMMP). Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(2):106-115. PubMed Google Scholar Crossref
39. Seigneurin. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2013. 20. Zackrisson. This
improvement in a risk assessment tool highlights the importance of making such adjustments when
considering the application of any risk tool, especially on specific populations. Acquisition, analysis,
or interpretation of data: Pace, Keating. NHS Breast Cancer Screening Programme website..
Accessed January 21, 2014. 4. Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme. In the near future,
ongoing research will likely be able to provide individualized treatment recommendations based on a
person’s specific tumor type,” Dr. Goldfischer said. CN leads the ROSA project which has received
the above-named funding.
Velentzis, Louiza S., Victoria Freeman, Denise Campbell, Suzanne Hughes, Qingwei Luo, Julia
Steinberg, Sam Egger, G. Contact your state water supply staff for. Apr 05 47. 1 multiply the
numerator of fraction 1 by the denominator of the fraction 2. 610 is equivalent to 35 because 6 x 5 10
x 3 30. 2 multiply the denominator of fraction 1 by the numerator of the fraction 2. RELATED
PAPERS Accuracy of Combined Mammographic and Sonographic Evaluation of Breast Lump than
of Either Used Alone. Sharp-tailed Snakes do not have venom that is dangerous to most humans.
They fell within the scope of this systematic review as they met the review’s criterion of a tool
calibrated to the study validation population of interest. Organizations that put more weight on the
benefits recommend earlier more frequent screening. And for the patient, you don’t get one second
opinion—you may get many second opinions.”. You can download the paper by clicking the button
above. We did not apply a single metric to compare tools because the interpretation and value of
each metric depends on how the risk assessment tool might be used. It was decided a priori that: (i)
risk of bias domains that contained signalling items relating only to model development would be
omitted as the primary interest of this systematic review was risk assessment tool validation and (ii)
the applicability of a study would not be formally assessed by the PROBAST tool; instead, concerns
would be highlighted where necessary in the discussion. There were other tools that were applied in
single cohorts within this review, and thus could only be assessed in only one population and one
setting. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’
follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;368(9552):2053-2060. The search strategy is
presented in supplementary Table S1. 2.4. Selection Process Titles and abstracts of the articles
identified via the literature searches were screened against pre-specified inclusion criteria and split
equally between two reviewers (VF, DC) with 20% assessed by both reviewers. Overall, factors
identified by our risk of bias analysis could potentially explain some of the observed differences in
tool performance in different settings described throughout this review. If there was insufficient data
to perform calculations, authors were contacted and if attempts to obtain data were unsuccessful, the
tool or study was excluded. Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge Dianne O’Connell
for her review and input to the umbrella protocol submitted to PROSPERO which included details
on this systematic review. This review did not compare tools in terms of interval cancers (i.e., cancers
diagnosed following a negative population screening test), breast cancer mortality, nor incidence of
breast cancer defined by different tumour characteristics (e.g., sub-type, size, grade, nodal
involvement). Velentzis, Louiza S., Victoria Freeman, Denise Campbell, Suzanne Hughes, Qingwei
Luo, Julia Steinberg, Sam Egger, G. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(10):CD001431. PubMed
Google Scholar 78. Mathieu. Pdf Breast Cancer Screening In The United Arab Emirates Is It Time
To Call For A Screening At An Earlier Age A Tell the patient intercourse may resume as usual after
discharge from the hospital.. Ad Over 130 Years of Exceptional Breast Cancer Care All Focused on
Our Patients. The review does not address several other important facets of breast cancer screening,
including the use of magnetic resonance imaging and newer mammography technologies. Research
will also be needed to explore the long-term effects of decision aids for screening decisions,
especially since women with more information may actually be less likely to engage in screening. 76,
77 Provisions in the Affordable Care Act establishing shared medical decision making as a marker
of quality of care could help speed development, dissemination, and evaluation of decision aids. 84.
Until better screening methods are available, improved understanding of these harms, enhanced
strategies to identify the highest-risk patients, and tools to help patients and clinicians incorporate
these in their decisions should be research priorities. The outcomes of the Iraqi studies obviously
illustrate significant knowledge gaps regarding the relative significance of diagnosing breast cancer
in the community and suggest a potential to take practical policy decisions that aim at elevating the
level of awareness among Iraqi women The aforementioned findings justify as well increasing efforts
for establishing feasible breast cancer control programs in Iraq focusing provisionally on promoting
early detection nationwide. Only English language peer-reviewed publications were included;
conference abstracts, reviews, letters, editorials and comments were excluded. Armed with the exact
same data, our three medical organizations all managed to extract different conclusions. Summary
characteristics of included articles are presented in Table 1. So if additional imaging is needed, it can
be performed during the same visit. If you are asked to come back for additional testing following
your initial mammogram results, don’t panic. A recent qualitative study found that the influence of
learning about overdiagnosis on screening intentions depended greatly on the magnitude of
overdiagnosis presented. 83 Expert consensus on overdiagnosis, combined with improved
understanding of how to describe this complex issue, may strengthen mammography decision aids.