The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consequences of False-Positive Screening Mammograms
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: False-positive mammograms, a common occurrence in breast cancer screening programs, represent a potential screening harm that is currently being evaluated by the US Preventive Services Task Force. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of false-positive mammograms on quality of life by measuring personal anxiety, health utility, and attitudes toward future screening. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) quality-of-life substudy telephone survey was performed shortly after screening and 1 year later at 22 DMIST sites and included randomly selected DMIST participants with positive and negative mammograms. EXPOSURE: Mammogram requiring follow-up testing or referral without a cancer diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The 6-question short form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory state scale (STAI-6) and the EuroQol EQ-5D instrument with US scoring. Attitudes toward future screening as measured by women's self-report of future intention to undergo mammographic screening and willingness to travel and stay overnight to undergo a hypothetical new type of mammography that would identify as many cancers with half the false-positive results. RESULTS: Among 1450 eligible women invited to participate, 1226 (84.6%) were enrolled, with follow-up interviews obtained in 1028 (83.8%). Anxiety was significantly higher for women with false-positive mammograms (STAI-6, 35.2 vs 32.7), but health utility scores did not differ and there were no significant differences between groups at 1 year. Future screening intentions differed by group (25.7% vs 14.2% more likely in false-positive vs negative groups); willingness to travel and stay overnight did not (9.9% vs 10.5% in false-positive vs negative groups). Future screening intention was significantly increased among women with false-positive mammograms (odds ratio, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.54-2.93), younger age (2.78; 1.5-5.0), and poorer health (1.63; 1.09-2.43). Women's anticipated high-level anxiety regarding future false-positive mammograms was associated with willingness to travel overnight (odds ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.28-2.95). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: False-positive mammograms were associated with increased short-term anxiety but not long-term anxiety, and there was no measurable health utility decrement. False-positive mammograms increased women's intention to undergo future breast cancer screening and did not increase their stated willingness to travel to avoid a false-positive result. Our finding of time-limited harm after false-positive screening mammograms is relevant for clinicians who counsel women on mammographic screening and for screening guideline development groups.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“which has been used in breast, colon, and lung cancer screening programs24–26 and in patients with cirrhosis.27”
From Depression and anxiety are common among patients with cirrhosis (2022) · cites this paper as [25]
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
(1970) · Cited by 24,983
Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
(1996) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195108248.001.0001 · Cited by 7,193
Marteau, T. M., & Bekker, H. (1992) · British Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x · Cited by 3,238
Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening
Pisano, E. D., Gatsonis, C. A., Hendrick, E. R., Yaffe, M. J., Baum, J. K., Acharyya, S., Conant, E. F., Fajardo, L. L., Bassett, L. W., D'Orsi, C. J., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa052911 · Cited by 1,937
Self-citationQuality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials
Spilker, B. (1996) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 1,862
US Valuation of the EQ-5D Health States
Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-200503000-00003 · Cited by 1,282
Ten-Year Risk of False Positive Screening Mammograms and Clinical Breast Examinations
Elmore, J. G., Barton, M. B., Moceri, V. M., Polk, S., Arena, P. J., & Fletcher, S. W. (1998) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199804163381601 · Cited by 1,051 · cited 1×
“DMIST QoL Substudy Participants The substudy was conducted by telephone survey and included 2 groups of women: (1) a random sample of DMIST participants with a positive screening mammogram, defined as any mammogram for which additional workup or consultation was recommended; and (2) a sample of women with a negative s…”
MethodEnthusiasm for Cancer Screening in the United States
Schwartz, L. M. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.1.71 · Cited by 690
Pisano, E. D., Hendrick, R. E., Yaffe, M. J., Baum, J. K., Acharyya, S., Cormack, J. B., Hanna, L. A., Conant, E. F., Fajardo, L. L., Bassett, L. W., et al. (2008) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2461070200 · Cited by 464
Self-citationSystematic Review: The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms
Brewer, N. T., Salz, T., & Lillie, S. E. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-7-200704030-00006 · Cited by 459
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [26]Hendrick RE Lewin JM D’Orsi C Yaffe M Non-inferiority study of ffdm in an enriched diagnostic cohort: Comparison with screen-film mammography in 625 women International workshopon digital mammography 2000: 5th international workshop on digital mammography 2001 475 481 Medical Physics Madison, WI et a
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–217 of 217
Freeland, D. G., Kilen, A., & Colburn, J. L. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-68786-0_4
Re-attendance to mammographic screening after a false positive screening result
Larsen, M., Moshina, N., Holen, Å. S., Bergan, M. B., & Hofvind, S. S. H. (2025) · Journal of Medical Screening · doi:10.1177/09691413251329671
“24,35,36 A major strength of our study was the large sample in which screening attendance could be linked with the screening history for each individual woman.”
Akiyama, H., Barke, L. D., Bevers, T. B., Rose, S. J., Hu, J. J., McAleese, K. A., Campos, S. S., Kondou, S., Atsumi, J., & Soriano, T. F. (2025) · Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1002/cam4.70767
“False positive results also have the consequence of increased short-term anxiety in women who undergo unnecessary diagnostic biopsies [5].”
Oza, U., Gohel, B., & Kumar, P. (2025) · Biomedical Engineering Applications Basis and Communications · doi:10.4015/s1016237225500516
Roux, A., Cholerton, R., Sicsic, J., Moumjid, N., French, D., Giorgi Rossi, P., Balleyguier, C., Guindy, M., Gilbert, F. J., Burrion, J.-B., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19728152
Lang, M., Liang, P., Shen, H., Li, H., Yang, N., Chen, B., Chen, Y., Ding, H., Yang, W., Ji, M. X., et al. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26592881
Huang, H., Proefke, M., Khera, E., & Thurber, G. M. (2026) · ACS Sensors · doi:10.1021/acssensors.5c03644
Lung Cancer Screening in a Rural Academic Health System Reveals Low False-Positive Rates
Fay, K. A., Schifferdecker, K. E., Kinney, L., Kyung, E. J., Bardach, S. H., Boardman, M. B., Högemann, D., Bridges, C. J., Halloran, S. R., Youkilis, S. L., et al. (2026) · Journal of Surgical Research · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2025.12.042
Gharaibeh, M., El-Obeid, E., Ahmmed, S., Fataftah, J. Z., Khasawneh, R. A., Rawashdeh, M. A., El-Heis, S. M., Gharaibeh, S. I., & Heis, M. E. (2026) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000048990
Microwave breast imaging: A review of clinical potential and technological advances
Akesson, I., Kovac, R., Son, H., Ortega, A. C. T. D. C. G., Fedorov, D., & Arachchige, A. S. P. M. (2026) · World Journal of Methodology · doi:10.5662/wjm.v16.i3.110991
Koivogui, A., SAIFI, S., RAZAFIJA, M., MENSAH, P., Bernoux, A., Chérel, P., & SELLIER, N. (2026) · Cancer Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.canep.2026.103188
Cen, L., Porembka, J. H., Hayes, J. C., Merchant, K., Igboagi, U., Srivastava, S., Mootz, A. R., Topper, V., Hayes, S., Yadu, N., et al. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.08.03.26359608
Rastreamento do câncer de mama: Onde estamos?
Chala, L. F., & de Mello, G. G. N. (2020) · Femina · doi:10.61622/0100-72544810202003
Kim, H., Baek, S., Han, B., Ko, E. S., Choi, J. S., Lee, J., Kim, M. K., & Ko, E. Y. (2026) · Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10278-026-02306-2
Vision-Enabled Large Language Models in Mammography: From Benchmarking to Clinical Accountability
Arita, Y., & Nissan, N. (2026) · Journal of Breast Imaging · doi:10.1093/jbi/wbag058
Metadata
- Authors
- Tosteson, A. N. A., Fryback, D. G., Hammond, C. S., Hanna, L. G., Grove, M. R., Brown, M., Wang, Q., Lindfors, K., & Pisano, E. D.
- Affiliations
- Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Brown University (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Medical University of South Carolina (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tosteson, Anna N. A.
- Venue
- JAMA Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2014-06-01
- Volume
- 174
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 954
- ISSN
- 2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4071565
- OpenAlex
- W1997495901
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9
- FWCI
- 9.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Public Health Service (U0179778-S1)
- National Cancer Institute (U01CA079778, U10CA180820, U01-CA-80098, U01 CA79778, U54CA163307, U01CA080098, UC2CA148259, U01CA80098-S1, U10CA180794, RC2/UC2CA148259, P30CA023108)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
- Keywords
- false-positive mammograms, breast cancer screening, health-related quality of life, health utility, screening intention, USPSTF screening recommendations, state anxiety, EQ-5D
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Anxiety, False Positive Reactions, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Mammography, Middle Aged, Quality of Life
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
