Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11161411›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2001

Predicted long-term mortality reduction associated with the second round of breast screening in East Anglia.

J McCann, S Duffy, N Day, East Anglia Breast Screening Programme

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The NHS breast cancer screening programme.British journal of cancer · 2003
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

J McCannCancer Intelligence Unit, University of Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, UK.
S Duffy
N Day
East Anglia Breast Screening Programme

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized trials have demonstrated that mammographic screening can reduce breast cancer mortality. Our aim was to estimate the reduction in mortality expected from the East Anglian Breast Screening Programme. Breast screening achieves benefit by improving cancer prognosis (reducing tumour size, nodal involvement and possibly grade) through earlier diagnosis. We compared cancer prognosis between women invited for screening and those not yet invited in East Anglia, UK, in order to predict the mortality reduction achievable by screening, independently of any reduction due to changes in treatment and underlying disease. Participants (both invited and not-yet invited) were women eligible for invitation to first and second screens and diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 1989-96. Death rates were predicted based on the observed distribution of tumour grade, size and node status amongst 950 cancers diagnosed following first invitation, up to and including at second screen (excluding those detected at first screening), and 451 cancers presenting symptomatically in women awaiting first invitation during the staggered introduction of screening, after adjustment for lead time amongst screen detected cases. For all ages, the ratio of predicted breast cancer mortality in the invited compared with the uninvited group was 0.85 (95% CI 0.78, 0.93). It was 0.93 (0.80, 1.08) for women aged 50-54 at diagnosis and 0.81 (0.72, 0.91) for those aged 55-64. We conclude that, by 2004, the second round of screening in East Anglia should reduce mortality by around 7% in women below age 55 at diagnosis, and by around 19% in those aged 55-64.

Indexed as

AgedAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansIncidenceMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMortalityUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID11161411
PMCPMC2363729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.