ReviewCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2001
Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening mammography among women aged 40-49 years at average risk of breast cancer.
Review in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic reviews as a 'lens of evidence': Determinants of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.International journal of cancer · 2019Pooled it
- Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 40-74 years.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2011Guideline
- Randomized trial of an intervention to improve mammography utilization among a triracial rural population of women.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2006Trial
- Evidence to action: a tailored multifaceted approach to changing family physician practice patterns and improving preventive care.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2001Trial
- Provincial Variation in Adherence to Breast Cancer Screening in Canada: Evidence From the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow's Health.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Patterns and predictors of adherence to breast cancer screening recommendations in Alberta's Tomorrow Project.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- How Did CNBSS Influence Guidelines for So Long and What Can That Teach Us?Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Population-Based Cancer Survival in Canada and the United States by Socioeconomic Status: Findings from the CONCORD-2 Study.Journal of registry management · 2022Article
- Patient and provider determinants of breast cancer screening among Ontario women aged 40-49: a population-based retrospective cohort study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
- Changes in mammography screening in Ontario and Alberta following national guideline dissemination: an interrupted time series analysis.F1000Research · 2021Article
- Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice - a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Scrutinizing screening: a critical interpretive review of primary care provider perspectives on mammography decision-making with average-risk women.Public health reviews · 2018Review
- No evidence of excessive cancer screening in female noncarriers fromCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2017Article
- Can you un-ring the bell? A qualitative study of how affect influences cancer screening decisions.BMC cancer · 2017Article
- Participation and retention in the breast cancer screening program in New Brunswick Canada.Preventive medicine reports · 2017Article
- Clinical follow-up and breast and ovarian cancer screening of true BRCA1/2 noncarriers: a qualitative investigation.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2016Article
- Knowledge and Practice on Prevention of Respiratory Health Problems among Traffic Police in Kathmandu, Nepal.International scholarly research notices · 2015Article
- Article
- Women's responses to changes in U.S. Preventive Task Force's mammography screening guidelines: results of focus groups with ethnically diverse women.BMC public health · 2013Article
- Temporal trend analysis of avoidable mortality in Taiwan, 1971-2008: overall progress, with areas for further medical or public health investment.BMC public health · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA previous review by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination (now the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care) in 1994 indicated fair evidence to exclude mammographic breast cancer screening of women aged 40-49 from the periodic health examination. This current review considers the available new and updated evidence regarding the effect of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality among women in this age group at average risk of breast cancer. OPTIONS: Screening mammography starting at either age 40 or age 50. OUTCOME: Reduction in breast cancer mortality. EVIDENCE: The MEDLINE and CANCERLIT databases were searched for relevant articles published from 1966 to January 2000. Of 68 references obtained, at least 22 were published after the 1994 review. To date, the only trial designed to assess the mortality benefits of screening mammography among women aged 40-49 did not have adequate power to exclude a clinically significant benefit. Other results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are post-hoc subgroup analyses of larger trials. BENEFITS, HARMS AND COSTS: Screening mammography offers the potential for significant benefits in addition to mortality reduction, including early diagnosis, less aggressive therapy and improved cosmetic results. However, the risks of screening include increased biopsy rates and the psychological effects of false reassurance or false-positive results. Although several of the trials reviewed constitute level I evidence (RCT), at present their conflicting results, methodologic differences and, most important, uncertainty about the risk:benefit ratio of screening precludes the assignment of a "good" or "fair" rating to recommendations drawn from them. VALUES: The strength of evidence was evaluated using the methods of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. A high value was placed on changes in survival. When evidence was available, value was also placed on potential quality-of-life implications. RECOMMENDATION: Current evidence regarding the effectiveness of screening mammography does not suggest the inclusion of the manoeuvre in, or its exclusion from, the periodic health examination of women aged 40-49 years at average risk of breast cancer (grade C recommendation). Upon reaching the age of 40, Canadian women should be informed of the potential benefits and risks of screening mammography and assisted in deciding at what age they wish to initiate the manoeuvre. VALIDATION: The findings of this analysis were reviewed through an iterative process by the members of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. SPONSORS: The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is funded through a partnership between the Provincial and Territorial Ministries of Health and Health Canada.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11233866PMC80774W2121357501What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.