ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2020
Mammography uptake among the female staff of King Saud University.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators of mammography screening among Bahraini women: a cross-sectional study in primary care.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Improving Breast Cancer Screening Coverage in Primary Healthcare: A Quality-Improvement Study (2023-2025).Cureus · 2026Article
- Performance Metrics of Mammography Screening Programmes in Primary Health Care Centres in Bahrain.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Barriers to Breast Cancer Screening in Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2024Review
- Article
- Perceptions and Behaviors Regarding Early Screening and Breast-Related Complaints Among Saudi Women.Cureus · 2024Article
- Insights into the Refusal of Free Screening Mammograms: Exploring Contributing Factors.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is having a major impact on women's health worldwide. Early detection is the best defense against the associated morbidity and mortality of the disease.
objectivesTo assess the level of mammography uptake among working Saudi women and identify the obstacles and barriers that negatively affect it. In addition, to identify the most effective sources of breast-cancer-related information and early detection screening.
methodWe conducted a cross-sectional study of women employees of King Saud University aged 40 years and above on March-May 2015 using a self-report questionnaire.
resultsA total of 229 participants were recruited from the female staff of King Saud University. Of the participants, 34% were aged 41 years or above, approximately 66% were married, 53.3% had a bachelor's degree, and 61.1% worked as administrators; further, 64.6% had a history of breastfeeding. The rate of mammography uptake was 51.5%. Univariate logistic regression indicated that age, education, and being single predict the rate of mammography uptake. However, multivariate logistic regression indicated that earlier age significantly predicts a higher risk of a low rate of mammography uptake. The main obstacle negatively affecting mammography uptake was ineligible criteria (21.8%). The main sources of information regarding breast cancer were awareness campaigns and television and radio (45.4% and 43.7%, respectively).
conclusionThe participants' rate of mammography uptake, awareness of mammograms, the risk factors, and signs of breast cancer were low. To improve breast-cancer mortality rates in Saudi Arabia, earlier detection of breast cancer through increasing awareness of mammograms is of paramount importance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.