Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15642178›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer research : BCR2005

Radiation and breast cancer: a review of current evidence.

Cécile M Ronckers, Christine A Erdmann, Charles E Land

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 123 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
123citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

123 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Deep Learning for Describing Breast Ultrasound Images with BI-RADS Terms.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

63 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Cécile M RonckersNational Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, NIH, HHS, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. ronckerc@mail.nih.gov
Christine A Erdmann
Charles E Land

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper summarizes current knowledge on ionizing radiation-associated breast cancer in the context of established breast cancer risk factors, the radiation dose-response relationship, and modifiers of dose response, taking into account epidemiological studies and animal experiments. Available epidemiological data support a linear dose-response relationship down to doses as low as about 100 mSv. However, the magnitude of risk per unit dose depends strongly on when radiation exposure occurs: exposure before the age of 20 years carries the greatest risk. Other characteristics that may influence the magnitude of dose-specific risk include attained age (that is, age at observation for risk), age at first full-term birth, parity, and possibly a history of benign breast disease, exposure to radiation while pregnant, and genetic factors.

Indexed as

Radiation, IonizingAdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsDose-Response Relationship, RadiationEpidemiologic StudiesFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedPregnancyRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID15642178
PMCPMC1064116

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.