Screening for breast and cervical cancer as a common cause for litigation. A false negative result may be one of an irreducible minimum of errors.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Reflections from Women with an Interval Breast Cancer Diagnosis: A Qualitative Analysis of Open Disclosure in the BreastScreen Western Australia Program.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023
   Article
2. Practitioner's role in implementing varying guidelines.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2020
   Article
3. Breast cancer screening in England and the United States: a comparison of provision and utilisation.International journal of public health · 2015
   Article
4. The role of effective communication to enhance participation in screening mammography: a New Zealand case.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2009
   Article
5. Frequency of risk factors for cervical cancer among women in fertile age.Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences · 2004
   Article
6. A measure of informed choice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2001
   Article
7. Screening and litigation. The rate of interval cancers is too high.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Screening and litigation. The rate of interval cancers is too high.2000
• Commented on by
  Screening and litigation. Measures of validity need to be clear.2000
• Commented on by
  Screening and litigation. Some false negatives arise from negligence.2000
• Commented on by
  Screening and litigation. "Blind" rereading of test results provide objectivity.2000

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as