The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The U.S. Online News Coverage of Mammography Based on a Google News Search
Abstract
Rationale and objectives To characterize online news coverage relating to mammography, including articles' stance toward screening mammography. Materials and methods Google News was used to search U.S. news sites over a 9-year period (2006-2015) based on the search terms "mammography" and "mammogram." The top 100 search results were recorded. Identified articles were manually reviewed. Results The top 100 news articles were from the following sources: local news outlet (50%), national news outlet (24%), nonimaging medical source (13%), entertainment or culture news outlet (6%), business news outlet (4%), peer-reviewed journal (1%), and radiology news outlet (1%). Most common major themes were the screening mammography controversy (29%), description of a new breast imaging technology (23%), dense breasts (11%), and promotion of a public screening initiative (11%). For the most recent year, article stance toward screening mammography was 59%, favorable; 16%, unfavorable; and 25%, neutral. After 2010, there was an abrupt shift in articles' stances from neutral to both favorable and unfavorable. Conclusions A wide range of online news sources addressed a range of issues related to mammography. National, rather than local, news sites were more likely to focus on the screening controversy and more likely to take an unfavorable view. The controversial United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines may have influenced articles to take a stance on screening mammography. As su…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“We restricted our search to Google News because it covers a vast range of news media sources [Filloux, 2013] and has been used previously in media analysis research as the single source of online news media coverage [Haneef et al., 2015;Young Lin and Rosenkrantz, 2017].”
From Scientific research in news media: a case study of misrepresentation, sensationalism and harmful recommendations (2022) · cites this paper as Young Lin and Rosenkrantz, 2017
Citations
Cites
Screening for Breast Cancer: Recommendations and Rationale
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2002) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-137-5_part_1-200209030-00011 · Cited by 456
Haneef, R., Lazarus, C., Ravaud, P., Yavchitz, A., & Boutron, I. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140889 · Cited by 70
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 2009, Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement, Ann Intern Med, 151, 716, 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008 · DOI
- Oeffinger, 2015, Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society, JAMA, 314, 1599, 10.1001/jama.2015.12783 · DOI
- American College of Obstetricians-Gynecologists, 2011, Practice bulletin no. 122: breast cancer screening, Obstet Gynecol, 118, 372
- Borzekowski, 2014, The Angelina effect: immediate reach, grasp, and impact of going public, Genet Med, 16, 516, 10.1038/gim.2013.181 · DOI
- Kelaher, 2008, Use of breast cancer screening and treatment services by Australian women aged 25–44 years following Kylie Minogue's breast cancer diagnosis, Int J Epidemiol, 37, 1326, 10.1093/ije/dyn090 · DOI · Paper page
- Dasgupta, 2009, Breaking the news or fueling the epidemic? Temporal association between news media report volume and opioid-related mortality, PLoS ONE, 4, 10.1371/journal.pone.0007758 · DOI
- Noar, 2013, Using digital surveillance to examine the impact of public figure pancreatic cancer announcements on media and search query outcomes, J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, 2013, 188, 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgt017 · DOI
Cited by
Dempster, G., Sutherland, G., & Keogh, L. (2022) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/2.21010206 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Young Lin, L. L., & Rosenkrantz, A. B.
- Affiliations
- NYU Langone Health (US)
- Venue
- Academic Radiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-12
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1612-1615
- ISSN
- 1076-6332 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2733673047
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 1.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academic Radiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Keywords
- mammography, online news coverage, media bias, dense breasts
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Mammography, United States, Internet, Journalism, Search Engine
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
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.
