ReviewJAMA2005
Screening for breast cancer.
Review in JAMA, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 244 papers, 10 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.
A Prospective Multicenter Matched-pair Clinical Study to Evaluate the Sensitivity and Specificity of ABUS and Digital X-Ray Mammography (XRM) Together as a Breast Cancer Screening Method Compared to XRM Alone in Women With >50% Parenchymal Density.
Efficacy of a Combined Program for Early Detection of Breast and Gynecological Cancers in Low Resource Countries
Who cites it
244 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,072 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supplemental Screening as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in People With Dense Breasts: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2023Pooled it
- Effects of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer in health care quality improvements. A second systematic review.F1000Research · 2022Pooled it
- Effectiveness of clinical breast examination as a 'stand-alone' screening modality: an overview of systematic reviews.BMC cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic reviews as a 'lens of evidence': Determinants of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.International journal of cancer · 2019Pooled it
- Intensive follow-up for women with breast cancer: review of clinical, economic and patient's preference domains through evidence to decision framework.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2017Pooled it
- Breast cancer screening interventions for Arabic women: a literature review.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2015Pooled it
- Recommendations for breast cancer surveillance for female survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer given chest radiation: a report from the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group.The Lancet. Oncology · 2013Guideline
- Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Interventions to increase the uptake of mammography amongst low income women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Innegligible musculoskeletal disorders caused by zoledronic acid in adjuvant breast cancer treatment: a meta-analysis.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2011Pooled it
- The clinical significance of circulating DSCAM-AS1 in patients with ER-positive breast cancer and construction of its competitive endogenous RNA network.Molecular biology reports · 2020Trial
- Evaluation of Health Belief Model-Based Intervention on Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors among Health Volunteers.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019Trial
- A cluster randomized controlled trial to increase breast cancer screening among African American women: the black cosmetologists promoting health program.Journal of the National Medical Association · 2011Trial
- Positron emission mammography in breast cancer presurgical planning: comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2011Trial
- Finding the minimal intervention needed for sustained mammography adherence.American journal of preventive medicine · 2010Trial
- Radionuclide-based pharmaceuticals for breast cancer imaging: state of the art.EJNMMI radiopharmacy and chemistry · 2026Review
- A foundation generative model for breast ultrasound image analysis.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- The synergistic effect of resveratrol and curcumin on oncogenic lncRNA MAPT-IT1 and ferroptosis-related genes in breast cancer.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
184 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
contextBreast cancer screening in community practices may be different from that in randomized controlled trials. New screening modalities are becoming available.
objectivesTo review breast cancer screening, especially in the community and to examine evidence about new screening modalities. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: English-language articles of randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness of breast cancer screening were reviewed, as well as meta-analyses, systematic reviews, studies of breast cancer screening in the community, and guidelines. Also, studies of newer screening modalities were assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: All major US medical organizations recommend screening mammography for women aged 40 years and older. Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by about 20% to 35% in women aged 50 to 69 years and slightly less in women aged 40 to 49 years at 14 years of follow-up. Approximately 95% of women with abnormalities on screening mammograms do not have breast cancer with variability based on such factors as age of the woman and assessment category assigned by the radiologist. Studies comparing full-field digital mammography to screen film have not shown statistically significant differences in cancer detection while the impact on recall rates (percentage of screening mammograms considered to have positive results) was unclear. One study suggested that computer-aided detection increases cancer detection rates and recall rates while a second larger study did not find any significant differences. Screening clinical breast examination detects some cancers missed by mammography, but the sensitivity reported in the community is lower (28% to 36%) than in randomized trials (about 54%). Breast self-examination has not been shown to be effective in reducing breast cancer mortality, but it does increase the number of breast biopsies performed because of false-positives. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound are being studied for screening women at high risk for breast cancer but are not recommended for screening the general population. Sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging in high-risk women has been found to be much higher than that of mammography but specificity is generally lower. Effect of the magnetic resonance imaging on breast cancer mortality is not known. A balanced discussion of possible benefits and harms of screening should be undertaken with each woman.
conclusionsIn the community, mammography remains the main screening tool while the effectiveness of clinical breast examination and self-examination are less. New screening modalities are unlikely to replace mammography in the near future for screening the general population.
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.