Evidence mapPaperPMID 8610077Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine1995

The use of cohort vs repeated cross-sectional sample survey data in monitoring changing breast cancer screening practices.

L S Caplan, D S Lane, R Grimson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07590219 (Efficacy, Metabolic and Cardiovascular Effects of Liraglutide in Children Aged 6-12 Years With Severe Obesity), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07590219 phase4active not recruitingstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy, Metabolic and Cardiovascular Effects of Liraglutide in Children Aged 6-12 Years With Severe Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Advanced Echocardiographic Assessment

Ran2024Enrolled30Registered outcomes9Posted comparisons0ConditionsCardiovascular Function, Childhood Obesity, Echocardiography, LiraglutideArmsLiraglutide (Saxenda) 6Mg/Ml Inj Pen 3Ml
Open the trial in the graph
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Natural history of diseases: Statistical designs and issues.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2016
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

L S CaplanDepartment of Preventive Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook 11794-8036, USA.
D S Lane
R Grimson

Funding

INCREASING THE USE OF MAMMOGRAPHY AND BREAST PALPATIONR01CA045034 · STATE UNIVERSITY NEW YORK STONY BROOK · 1987 to 1990
NCI NIH HHS 1R01 CA 45034
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe method used to select a study sample is a key element in designing a research protocol. This article explores two of the more common methods used, focusing on the relative advantages and disadvantages of each one.

methodsBoth cohort and repeated, independent cross-sectional surveys were conducted in each of 3 years (1988-1990) in the Awareness of Breast Cancer Screening Project to follow changing breast cancer screening rates among a population of women 50-75 years of age on Long Island, New York.

resultsBoth survey methods revealed statistically significant increases in self-reports of mammography use. The cohort and repeated cross-sectional survey sample responses to questions concerning knowledge, attitudes, and behavior regarding breast cancer screening were comparable. An educational effect of the baseline survey itself on the cohort was not seen.

conclusionsEach of the two survey methods has advantages and disadvantages with respect to the other. The cohort method permits examination of changes in the same individual over time and is less costly and less time-consuming to perform. On the other hand, the cross-sectional method does not suffer from cumulative losses in respondents with repeated surveys and better reflects the changing community. The study findings can be used to guide the selection of an appropriate survey methodology for monitoring breast cancer screening practices in other settings.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAgedBiasBreast NeoplasmsCosts and Cost AnalysisData CollectionFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPhysical ExaminationResearch Design

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.