Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 375

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does This Patient Have Breast Cancer?: The Screening Clinical Breast Examination: Should It Be Done? How?

Barton, Mary B., Harris, Russell, Fletcher, Suzanne W.·1999·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: The clinical breast examination (CBE) is widely recommended and practiced as a tool for breast cancer screening; however, its effectiveness is dependent on its precision and accuracy. OBJECTIVE: To collect evidence on the effectiveness of CBE in screening for breast cancer and information on the best technique to use. DATA SOURCES: We searched the English-language literature using the MEDLINE database (1966-1997) and manual review of all reference lists, as well as contacting investigators of several published studies for clarifications and unpublished data. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: To study CBE effectiveness, we included all controlled trials and case-control studies in which CBE was at least part of the screening modality; for technique, we included both clinical studies and those that used silicone breast models. All 3 authors reviewed and agreed on the studies selected for inclusion in the pooled analyses. DATA SYNTHESIS: Randomized clinical trials demonstrated reduced breast cancer mortality rates among women screened by both CBE and mammography. Evidence of CBE's independent contribution was less direct; CBE alone detected between 3% and 45% of breast cancers found that screening mammography missed. The precision of CBE was difficult to determine because of the lack of consistent and standardized examination techniques. Studies on CBE precision reported fair agreement (kappa = 0.22-0.59). Pooling trial data, we estimated CBE sensitivity at 54% and specificity at 94%. The likelihood ratio of a positive CBE result is 10.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8-19.2), while the likelihood ratio of a negative test result is 0.47 (95% CI, 0.40-0.56). Longer duration of CBE and a higher number of specific techniques used were associated with greater accuracy. The preferred technique for CBE includes proper positioning of the patient, thoroughness of search, use of a vertical-strip search pattern, proper position and movement of the fingers, and a CBE duration of at least 3 minutes per breast. The value of inspection is unproved. Professional and lay examiners improved their sensitivity on silicone breast models after being taught this technique. CONCLUSIONS: Indirect evidence supports the effectiveness of CBE in screening for breast cancer. Although the screening clinical examination by itself does not rule out disease, the high specificity of certain abnormal findings greatly increases the probability of breast cancer.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.282.13.1270

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Cited by

See all 375

Metadata

Authors
Barton, M. B., Harris, R., & Fletcher, S. W.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1999-10-06
Volume
282
Issue
13
Pages
1270
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2065995328
Cited by
375
References
43
FWCI
4.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does This Patient Have Breast Cancer?: The Screening Clinical Breast Examination: Should It Be Done? How? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.282.13.1270
The paper
Barton, M. B., Harris, R., & Fletcher, S. W. (1999). Does This Patient Have Breast Cancer?: The Screening Clinical Breast Examination: Should It Be Done? How? JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.13.1270

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.