The aim of this study was to measure the use of mammography and the factors associated with testing among Spanish women, after the introduction of screening programmes in Spain. We conducted a cross-sectional population survey of a representative sample of women aged 40-70 (2409 women). Data collection took place in October 2000, using a questionnaire addressing the dependent variable (mammography use) and the independent variables (socio-demographic and socio-health factors, and women's knowledge and attitudes). Mammography use was defined as having received at least one screening test in the previous 2 years. Data analysis consisted of univariate and multivariate analyses. 48.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 46.0-50.2) of women had received screening mammography. The main factors associated with testing were: mammography invitation from the screening programme (odds ratio (OR) 4.81; 95% CI 3.85-6.01); gynaecologist visit (OR 4.32; 95% CI 3.45-5.41); and intention to have a mammogram (OR 2.94; 95% CI 2.00-4.32). Other test-related factors were: not rejecting test for discomfort or fear of cancer; mammography perceived as necessary; age 56-65; upper/upper-middle socio-economic status. In conclusion, after the introduction of screening programmes, almost half of Spanish women aged 40-70 had received mammography. Invitation to screening, gynaecologist visit and women's attitudes are the main reasons for undergoing testing. Women over 65 years of age and/or those in a lower socio-economic level warrant special attention.

Background Robotic surgery (RS) may offer benefits compared with freehand/conventional surgery (FS) in the treatment of patients with spinal disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RS versus FS in spinal fusion. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Data analysis and risk of bias assessment were analysed using REVMAN V5.3. Results We found 11 randomised clinical trials involving 817 patients (FS: 408, RS: 409). The main diagnosis was degenerative spine disease. SpineAssist, Renaissance (Mazor Robotics), Tianji Robot and TiRobot robots (TINAVI Medical Technologies) were used. Pedicle screw placement within the safety zone (grades A + B according to the Gertzbein and Robbins scale) ranged from 93% to 100% in FS versus 85–100% in RS (relative risk 1.01, 95% CI  1.00–1.03, p = 0.14). Regarding intervention time, the meta-analysis showed a mean difference (MD) of 6.45 min (95% CI  −13.59 to 26.49, p = 0.53). Mean hospital stay was MD of −0.36 days (95% CI  −1.03 to 0.31, p = 0.30) with no differences between groups. Contradictory results were found regarding fluoroscopy time, although there seems to be a lower radiation dose in RS versus FS (p < 0.05). Regarding safety, the studies included surgical revision frequency. Conclusions No conclusive results were found suggesting that there are benefits in using RS over FS for spinal fusion. Further research with adequate patient selection, robot type and quality-of-life variables is needed. Level of evidence: level 1.

No abstract

No abstract