ArticleBritish journal of cancer2005
What should the detection rates of cancers be in breast screening programmes?
Article in British journal of cancer, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- AAPM/EFOMP TG282 versus dance dosimetry for digital breast tomosynthesis in the assessment pathway of a breast screening program.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Thirty years of population-based breast cancer screening in Iceland: a comparison of quality indicators and tumour characteristics between women aged 40-49 and 50-69 years.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
- Radiation doses received in the UK breast screening programmes 2019-2023.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Interval cancer audit and disclosure in breast screening programmes: An international survey.Journal of medical screening · 2023Article
- Shift in harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening in the era of HPV screening and vaccination: a modelling study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2022Article
- Article
- Digital Analysis in Breast Imaging.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer control strategies in Central America: the cases of Costa Rica and Mexico.PloS one · 2014Article
- Article
- Effect of repeated invitations on uptake of colorectal cancer screening using faecal occult blood testing: analysis of prevalence and incidence screening.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimum detection rates at screening are sometimes laid down as standards for breast cancer screening programmes, based on underlying incidence of the disease in the age group screened. Detection rates should also depend on desired sensitivity, mean sojourn time, interscreening interval and the screening round--that is, prevalent (first) or incident (second or subsequent). In this paper, we use these quantities to derive expected, minimum and maximum detection rates proportional to the underlying incidence as well as estimated underlying incidence rates from extrapolation of prescreening trends in England and Wales to derive alternative standard minimum, expected and maximum detection rates per 1000 women screened for the UK Breast Screening Programme, as follows: minimum detection rates should be 4.1 and 4.3 at prevalence screen and incidence screens, respectively; expected rates should be 6.9 and 4.8 and maximum rates of 9.6 and 5.5. These are consistent with observed detection rates in the UK programme.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.