Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16168145›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2005

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: overdiagnosis in randomised controlled trials of breast cancer screening.

Sue Moss

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Overdetection of Breast Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Breast cancer screening with mammography.Current oncology reports · 2011
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Are UK cancer cure rates worse than in most other European countries?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2010
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sue MossCancer Screening Evaluation Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK. sue.moss@icr.ac.uk
Institute of Cancer Research · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data from randomised controlled trials of mammographic screening can be used to determine the extent of any overdiagnosis, as soon as either a time equivalent to the lead-time has elapsed after the final screen, or the control arm has been offered screening. This paper reviews those randomised trials for which breast cancer incidence data are available. In recent trials in which the control group has not been offered screening, an excess incidence of breast cancer remains after many years of follow-up. In those trials in which the control arm has been offered screening, although there is a possible shift from invasive to in situ disease, there is no evidence of overdiagnosis as a result of incident screens.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDiagnostic ErrorsFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID16168145
PMCPMC1242166
OpenAlexW1538211729

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.