The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine women's attitudes and knowledge of both false-positive mammography results and the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ after screening mammography. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 479 women aged 18 to 97 years who did not report a history of breast cancer. Main outcome measures Attitudes and knowledge about false-positive results and the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ after screening mammography. RESULTS: Women were aware that false-positive results do occur. Their median estimate of the false-positive rate for 10 years of annual screening was 20% (25th percentile estimate, 10%; 75th percentile estimate, 45%). The women were highly tolerant of false-positive results: 63% thought that 500 or more false-positives per life saved was reasonable, and 37% would tolerate a rate of 10,000 or more. Women who had had a false-positive result (n = 76) expressed the same high tolerance: 30 (39%) would tolerate 10,000 or more false-positives. In all, 62% of women did not want to take false-positive results into account when deciding about screening. Only 8% of women thought that mammography could harm a woman without breast cancer, and 94% doubted the possibility of nonprogressive breast cancers. Few had heard of ductal carcinoma in situ, a cancer that may not progress, but when informed, 60% of women wanted to take into account the possibility of it being detected when deciding about screening. CONCLUSIONS: Women are aware of false-positive results and seem to view them as an acceptable consequence of screening mammography. In contrast, most women are unaware that screening can detect cancers that may never progress but think that such information would be relevant. Education should perhaps focus less on false-positive results and more on the less-familiar outcome of the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ.
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.
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
Statistical Abstract of the United States
(2005) · Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences · doi:10.1002/0471667196.ess2527 · Cited by 8,785
Actual causes of death in the United States
McGinnis, J. M. (1993) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03510180077038 · Cited by 5,480
Losh-Hesselbart, S., & Fowler, F. J. (1985) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288598 · Cited by 4,764
Guide to Clinical Preventive Services
Wesley Allen, T. (1991) · The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association · doi:10.1515/jom-1991-900515 · Cited by 2,129
Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1956.
W., W. A., & Goldfield, E. D. (1957) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2281413 · Cited by 1,713
Integrated Public Use Microdata Series
Ruggles, S., Genadek, K., Goeken, R., Grover, J., & Sobek, M. (2015) · Institute for Social Research and Data Innovation · doi:10.18128/d010.v6.0 · Cited by 1,485
Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis
Kerlikowske, K. M. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.273.2.149 · Cited by 1,131
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 1,053
Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials
Nyström, L., Wall, S., Rutqvist, L. E., Lindgren, A., Lindqvist, M., Rydén, S., Andersson, J., Bjurstam, N., Fagerberg, G., Frisell, J., et al. (1993) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)91067-v · Cited by 968
Guide to Clinical Preventive Services
&NA; (1997) · The Nurse Practitioner · doi:10.1097/00006205-199705000-00020 · Cited by 906
Cited by
Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics
Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., & Woloshin, S. (2007) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x · Cited by 1,336
Self-citationAmerican Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening: Update 2003
Smith, R. A., Saslow, D., Andrews Sawyer, K., Burke, W., Costanza, M. E., Evans, W. P., Foster, R. S., Hendrick, E., Eyre, H. J., & Sener, S. (2003) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.53.3.141 · Cited by 770
Systematic 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 455
Halligan, S., Altman, D. G., & Mallett, S. (2015) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3487-0 · Cited by 255
Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms
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. (2014) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.981 · Cited by 217
Metadata
- Authors
- Schwartz, L. M.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2000-06-17
- Volume
- 320
- Issue
- 7250
- Pages
- 1635-1640
- ISSN
- 0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2111380973
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 3.92
- 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: US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.320.7250.1635
- The paper
- Schwartz, L. M. (2000). US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7250.1635
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.