Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 263

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Smith, S.G., Sestak, I., Forster, A., Partridge, A., Side, L., Wolf, M.S., Horne, R., Wardle, J., Cuzick, J.·2016·Annals of Oncology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preventive therapy is a risk reduction option for women who have an increased risk of breast cancer. The effectiveness of preventive therapy to reduce breast cancer incidence depends on adequate levels of uptake and adherence to therapy. We aimed to systematically review articles reporting uptake and adherence to therapeutic agents to prevent breast cancer among women at increased risk, and identify the psychological, clinical and demographic factors affecting these outcomes. DESIGN: Searches were carried out in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsychInfo, yielding 3851 unique articles. Title, abstract and full text screening left 53 articles, and a further 4 studies were identified from reference lists, giving a total of 57. This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42014014957). RESULTS: Twenty-four articles reporting 26 studies of uptake in 21 423 women were included in a meta-analysis. The pooled uptake estimate was 16.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.6-19.0], with high heterogeneity (I(2) = 98.9%, P < 0.001). Uptake was unaffected by study location or agent, but was significantly higher in trials [25.2% (95% CI 18.3-32.2)] than in non-trial settings [8.7% (95% CI 6.8-10.9)] (P < 0.001). Factors associated with higher uptake included having an abnormal biopsy, a physician recommendation, higher objective risk, fewer side-effect or trial concerns, and older age. Adherence (day-to-day use or persistence) over the first year was adequate. However, only one study reported a persistence of ≥ 80% by 5 years. Factors associated with lower adherence included allocation to tamoxifen (versus placebo or raloxifene), depression, smoking and older age. Risk of breast cancer was discussed in all qualitative studies. CONCLUSION: Uptake of therapeutic agents for the prevention of breast cancer is low, and long-term persistence is often insufficient for women to experience the full preventive effect. Uptake is higher in trials, suggesting further work should focus on implementing preventive therapy within routine care.

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 · 10.1093/annonc/mdv590

Cites

8 of 8 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 8 references

Cited by

See all 263

Metadata

Authors
Smith, S. G., Sestak, I., Forster, A., Partridge, A., Side, L., Wolf, M. S., Horne, R., Wardle, J., & Cuzick, J.
Venue
Annals of Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
575-590
ISSN
0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2195518879
Cited by
263
References
8
FWCI
3.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/annonc/mdv590
The paper
Smith, S. G., Sestak, I., Forster, A., Partridge, A., Side, L., Wolf, M. S., Horne, R., Wardle, J., & Cuzick, J. (2016). Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv590

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.