Table 3.
The statistical indicators of breast cancer screening
| First author/city/year of publication | Study design | Study population | Sample size | Mean age (SD) | Reported index | The most important findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taymoori, Sanandaj, 2009[112] | Cross-sectional | Employed females in governmental institutes and departments | 606 | 37.08 (9.81) | Instrument | Developing and validating CHBMS to assess Iranian females’ beliefs related to BC and screening |
| Barfar, 10 cities of Iran, 2014[109] | Cost-effectiveness | Females >35 years | 26,606 | NA | Detection rate | Detection rate: 24 per 100,000 The cost per cancer detected:$15,742 False-positive detection rate: 7.5% |
| Miller, Yazd, 2015[106] | Field-trial | Females residing in urban areas | 12,602 | NA | Response rate to BSE + CBE screening of BC | Response rate: Data collection at patients’ homes in both groups: 100% Visiting HCC in the intervention group: 84.5% |
| Jafari, Kerman, 2015[106] | Cross-sectional | Females 35-69 years | 15,794 | NA | Participation rate | Participation rate: Urban region 3.8%, villages and towns 16.34% |
| Saghatchi, Zanjan, 2015[107] | Cross-sectional | Females admitted to the mammography center of Mousavi Hospital | 526 | 44.3 | Detection rate Abnormality rate |
Screening mammography rate: 27.4% Diagnostic sonography rate: 26% Biopsy rate: 1.4% Detection rate: 2.3% Abnormality rate: 33% |
| Khazaee_Pool, Tehran, 2016[113] | Cross-sectional | Females referred to TUMS HCCs | 585 | 41.25 (6.34) | Instrument | Developing and validating an instrument to identify factors affecting females’ BC prevention behaviors named ASSISTS |
| Aminisani, Baneh, 2016[52] | Cross-sectional | Females >40 years referred to HCCs | 561 | 43.64 (5.17) | Participation rate | Participation rate in mammography program: 16.8% The lowest level of participation: Females >60 years, illiterate, postmenopausal |
| Shafaie, Tabriz, 2016[110] | Cross-sectional | Females referred for screening to BC clinic of Behbood Hospital | 5000 | 37.45 (10.81) | Abnormal finding rate | After CBE: 759 abnormal cases After 996 sonography: 40 abnormal cases After 636 mammography: 183 abnormal cases After 14 FNA: One cancer case (7.1%) |
| Moshki, Sanandaj, 2017[114] | Cross-sectional | Females referred to HCCs in Sanandaj | 482 | 47.35 (9.8) | Instrument | A valid instrument for mammography self-efficacy and fear of BC scales in Iranian women |
| Alikhassi, Tehran, 2017[108] | Longitudinal | Females referred to a university hospital | 9395 | 49.84 (9.19) | Recall rate, detection rate of opportunistic screening mammography | Recall rate: total: 24.7%, first mammography: 29%, subsequent Mammography: 22%, micro-calcification: 21.1%, mass: 49.3%, distortion: 34.8%, asymmetry: 48.1% Cancer detection rate: 8.5 per 1000 mammography |
| Poorolajal, Tehran, 2018[115] | Cross-sectional | Native Iranian women | 1422 | Intervention 48.37 (10.79) Control 42.37 (9.84) |
Instrument | Age alone is not a strong predictor of BC The chart: facilitates making decisions on the threshold for recommending screening mammography, detects high-risk individuals |
| Khazaee_Pool, Sanandaj, 2018[116] | Cross-sectional | Females referred to HCCs in Sanandaj | 434 | 48.12 (8.91) | Instrument | Response rate: 91% A valid instrument: MSS |
| Pourhaji, Tehran, 2018[117] | Cross-sectional | Females >40 years referred to HCCs of SBMU | 200 | Median (45.6) | Model | A valid instrument: BSEBPS |
| Heidari, Isfahan, 2018[118] | Cross-sectional | Persian language females | 1078 | 36.5 (11.65) | Instrument | Transcultural adaptation and validation of an instrument: BCAM |
| Fathollahi_Dehkord, Isfahan, 2018[101] | Clinical-trial | Females with a BC_FH | 98 | Intervention 36.04 (10.90) Control 35.58 (10.22) |
Response rate to CBE screening | Response rate: 81% |
| Khazaee-Pool, Tehran, 2018[119] | Cross-sectional | Females 30-75 years referred to HCCs of TUMS | 260 | 45.12 (5.92) | Model | Seven constructs of model: Perceived social support, attitude, motivation, self-efficacy, information seeking, stress management, self-care A, motivation, self-efficacy, information seeking, social support influence self-care behavior and stress management |
| Saei Ghare Naz, Tehran, 2019[111] | Cross-sectional | Females referred to HCCs of SBMU | 325 | 34.82 (11.73) | BCSB and MHLC score | BCSB: 40.72±10.41 MHLC: 67.78±17.67 |
SD=Standard deviation; TUMS=Tehran University of Medical Sciences; HCC=Health Care Center; BC=Breast cancer; SBMU=Shahid Beheshti Medical University; BC_FH=Family history of breast cancer; BSE=Breast self-examination; CBE=Clinical breast examination; NA=Not available; BCSB=Breast cancer screening belief; MHLC=Multidimensional health locus of control; CHBMS=Champion Health Belief Model Scale; FNA=Fine-needle aspiration; MSS=Mammography social support; BSEBPS=Breast Self-Examination Behavior Predicting Scale; BCAM=Breast cancer awareness measure