Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Sep 13.
Published in final edited form as: Ann Intern Med. 2013 Apr 16;158(8):580–587. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-8-201304160-00002

Appendix Table 10.

Effect on Primary Analyses of a Potentially Unmeasured Confounder*

Outcome by Table OR Associated With CAD (95% CI)
Original Analysis With Potential
Unmeasured Confounding
Sensitivity Analysis Accounting for
Unmeasured Confounder
Table 1

  Any breast cancer 1.04 (1.01–1.06) 1.00 (0.98–1.03)

    Invasive breast cancer 1.00 (0.97–1.03) 0.96 (0.95–0.99)

      Stage I invasive 1.06 (1.03–1.10) 1.03 (1.00–1.07)

      Stages II–IV invasive 0.92 (0.87–0.96) 0.89 (0.85–0.93)

  DCIS 1.17 (1.11–1.23) 1.15 (1.09–1.21)

Table 4
  Smallest OR: Invasive size <1 cm (vs. ≥1 cm) 1.10 (1.04–1.16) 1.08 (1.02–1.14)

  Largest OR: Invasive stage I or II (vs. III or IV) 1.27 (1.14–1.41) 1.25 (1.13–1.38)

Table 5
  Smallest OR: Breast ultrasonography 1.08 (1.06–1.09) 1.05 (1.03–1.06)

  Largest OR: Diagnostic mammography 1.28 (1.27–1.29) 1.25 (1.24–1.26)

CAD = computer-aided detection; DCIS = ductal carcinoma in situ; OR = odds ratio.

*

Sensitivity analyses assume a 10% relative imbalance in the prevalence of unmeasured increased breast density among women who receive screening mammography with CAD compared with women who receive screening without CAD.