Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11687128›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001

Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

O Olsen, P C Gøtzsche

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Screening for breast cancer with mammography.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Misinformation and Facts about Breast Cancer Screening.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

O OlsenThe Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, dept. 7112, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen O, Denmark, DK-2100. o.olsen@cochrane.dk
P C Gøtzsche
Cochrane · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMammographic screening for breast cancer is controversial, as reflected in greatly varying national policies.

objectivesTo assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE (16 May 2000), The Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's trial register (24 Jan 2000) and reference lists. Letters, abstracts and unpublished trials. Authors were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by both authors independently. MAIN

resultsSeven completed and eligible trials involving half a million women were identified. The two best trials provided medium-quality data and, when combined, yield a relative risk for overall mortality of 1.00 (95% CI 0.96-1.05) after 13 years. However, the trials are underpowered for all-cause mortality, and confidence intervals include a possible worthwhile effect as well as a possible detrimental effect. If data from all eligible trials (excluding flawed studies) are considered then the relative risk for overall mortality after 13 years is 1.01 (95% CI 0.99-1.03). The best trials failed to show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with a relative risk of 0.97 (95% CI 0.82-1.14). If data from all eligible trials (excluding flawed studies) are considered then the relative risk for breast cancer mortality after 13 years is 0.80 (95% CI 0.71-0.89). However, breast cancer mortality is considered to be an unreliable outcome and biased in favour of screening. Flaws are due to differential exclusion of women with breast cancer from analysis and differential misclassification of cause of death. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThe currently available reliable evidence does not show a survival benefit of mass screening for breast cancer (and the evidence is inconclusive for breast cancer mortality). Women, clinicians and policy makers should consider these findings carefully when they decide whether or not to attend or support screening programs.

Indexed as

MammographyBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMass ScreeningRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID11687128
OpenAlexW4237103139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.