Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16136033›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2005

Mammographic screening before age 50 years in the UK: comparison of the radiation risks with the mortality benefits.

A Berrington de González, G Reeves

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Health Care Accessibility and Breast Cancer Mortality in Europe.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Breast cancer screening: the questions answered.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2012
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A Berrington de GonzálezCancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Gibson Building, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK. aberring@hsph.edu
G Reeves
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mammographic screening before age 50 years is less effective than at older ages and the associated radiation risks are higher. We estimated how many breast cancer deaths could be caused and how many could be prevented by a decade of annual two-view mammographic screening starting at ages 20, 30 and 40 years, respectively, in the UK; for all women, and for women with first-degree relatives affected with breast cancer. We extrapolated from a radiation risk model to estimate the number of radiation-induced breast cancer deaths, and used results from randomised trials, which suggest a reduction in breast cancer mortality of 10-20% in women invited to screening before age 50 years, to estimate the number of deaths that could be prevented. The net change in breast cancer deaths was defined as the number of radiation-induced deaths minus the number of prevented deaths. For all women, assuming a reduction in mortality from screening of 20%, a decade of annual screening was estimated to induce more deaths than it prevents if started at age 20 years and at age 30 years (net increase = 0.86 and 0.37 breast cancer deaths, respectively, per 1000 women screened). The corresponding estimate for screening starting at age 40 years was a net decrease of 0.46 deaths/1000 women screened and a zero net change assuming a 10% mortality reduction. Results for women with first-degree relatives with breast cancer were generally in the same direction but, because their background incidence rates are higher, the net increases or decreases were greater. In conclusion, our estimates suggest that a decade of annual two-view mammographic screening before age 40 years would result in a net increase in breast cancer deaths, and that starting at age 40 years could result in a material net decrease only if breast cancer mortality is reduced by about 20% or more in women screened. Although these calculations were based on a number of uncertain parameters, in general, the conclusions were not altered when these parameters were varied within a feasible range.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceLife ExpectancyMammographyMiddle AgedNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSensitivity and SpecificityUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID16136033
PMCPMC2361593
OpenAlexW1993999961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.