The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms

Letters20 November 2007The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive MammogramsNoel Brewer, PhD, Talya Salz, BS, and Sarah E. Lillie, MPHNoel Brewer, PhDFrom University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.Search for more papers by this author, Talya Salz, BSFrom University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.Search for more papers by this author, and Sarah E. Lillie, MPHFrom University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-10-200711200-00016 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail IN RESPONSE:Drs. Brodersen and Thorsen's letter refers to their review showing long-term effects of false-positive mammography results in only 2 studies (1). Their findings, paired with their concerns about the validity of measures used, led them to conclude that available measures were inadequate to detect long-term effects of false-positive results. We believe that their conclusion is incorrect, resulting from their decision to exclude many ad hoc measures in order to focus on those for which some information on validation was available. In our systematic review of 23 studies that met stringent quality criteria, we found that false-positive mammograms were ...References1. Brodersen J, Thorsen H, Cockburn J. The adequacy of measurement of short and long-term consequences of false-positive screening mammography. J Med Screen. 2004;11:39-44. [PMID: 15006113] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Leventhal H, Contrada RJ, Leventhal EA. Editorial: lessons from white coat hypertension: comment on Spruill et al. “The impact of perceived hypertension status on anxiety and the white coat effect.”. Ann Behav Med. 2007;34:10-3. [PMID: 17688392] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20:21-35. [PMID: 11306229] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Clark MA, Rakowski W, Bonacore LB. Repeat mammography: prevalence estimates and considerations for assessment. Ann Behav Med. 2003;26:201-11. [PMID: 14644696] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Noel Brewer, PhD; Talya Salz, BS; Sarah E. Lillie, MPHAffiliations: From University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.Disclosures: None disclosed. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoSystematic Review: The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms Noel T. Brewer , Talya Salz , and Sarah E. Lillie The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms John Brodersen and Hanne Thorsen The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms Berta M. Geller and Richard Pinckney Metrics Cited byA computer-aided diagnosis scheme of breast lesion classification using GLGLM and shape features: Combined-view and multi-classifiersAutomatic Mass Detection from Mammograms with Region-Based Convolutional Neural NetworkAssessing and increasing breast cancer screening 20 November 2007Volume 147, Issue 10Page: 739-740KeywordsAnxietyBreast cancerBreast cancer screeningConflicts of interestMammographyRelative riskScreening guidelinesSystematic reviews ePublished: 20 November 2007 Issue Published: 20 November 2007 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2007 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...