Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 542

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Geographic Variation in the Use of Breast-Conserving Treatment for Breast Cancer

Open access
Nattinger, Ann Butler, Gottlieb, Mark S., Veum, Judith, Yahnke, David, Goodwin, James S.·1992·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the past decade there has been an increase in the use of treatment designed to conserve the breast for women with breast cancer. The extent to which such treatment has been adopted in various regions of the country and whether characteristics of hospitals and patients predict its use is not known, however. METHODS: We used national data on Medicare claims for inpatient care provided in 1986 to study 36,982 women 65 to 79 years of age, who had local or regional breast cancer and underwent either mastectomy or breast-conserving treatment (local excision, quadrantectomy, or subtotal mastectomy). Information about the hospitals at which these women were treated was obtained from an American Hospital Association survey. RESULTS: Of the 36,982 women, 12.1 percent had breast-conserving surgery and 87.9 percent had a mastectomy. The frequency of breast-conserving surgery ranged from 3.5 percent to 21.2 percent in various states. The highest rate of use was in the Middle Atlantic states (20.0 percent) and New England (17.2 percent), and the lowest was in the East South Central states (5.9 percent) and the West South Central states (7.3 percent). Breast-conserving treatment was used more often in urban than in rural areas, in teaching hospitals than in nonteaching hospitals, in large hospitals than in small hospitals, and in hospitals with on-site radiation therapy or geriatric services than in others. Most of the geographic variation persisted after adjustment for the characteristics of hospitals and patients for which data were available. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial geographic variation in the use of breast-conserving surgery, which cannot be explained by differences in hospital characteristics. Hospital characteristics that were independently redictive of greater use of breast-conserving surgery were the size of the metropolitan area, the status of the institution as a teaching hospital, and the availability of radiation therapy and geriatric services.

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 · 10.1056/nejm199204233261702

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 542

Metadata

Authors
Nattinger, A. B., Gottlieb, M. S., Veum, J., Yahnke, D., & Goodwin, J. S.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1992-04-23
Volume
326
Issue
17
Pages
1102-1107
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2338895639
Cited by
542
References
1
FWCI
12.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Geographic Variation in the Use of Breast-Conserving Treatment for Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199204233261702
The paper
Nattinger, A. B., Gottlieb, M. S., Veum, J., Yahnke, D., & Goodwin, J. S. (1992). Geographic Variation in the Use of Breast-Conserving Treatment for Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199204233261702

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.