ArticlePreventive medicine1995
The use of cohort vs repeated cross-sectional sample survey data in monitoring changing breast cancer screening practices.
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.
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.
Efficacy, Metabolic and Cardiovascular Effects of Liraglutide in Children Aged 6-12 Years With Severe Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Advanced Echocardiographic Assessment
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in seasonal influenza vaccination uptake among older adults during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: Repeated random telephone surveys.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Frequent experience with face coverings for 10 months improves emotion perception among individuals with high autistic traits: A repeated cross-sectional study.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2023Article
- A Conservation of Resources schema for exploring the influential forces for air-travel stress.Tourism management · 2021Article
- Impact on immigrant screening adherence with introduction of a population-based colon screening program in Ontario, Canada.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Rapidly increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity in older Ghanaian adults from 2007-2015: Evidence from WHO-SAGE Waves 1 & 2.PloS one · 2019Article
- Natural history of diseases: Statistical designs and issues.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2016Article
- Inconsistent self-reported mammography history: findings from the National Population Health Survey longitudinal cohort.BMC health services research · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
8610077What 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.