ArticleBritish journal of cancer2009
Evaluation of extension of breast screening to women aged 65-70 in England using screening performance measures.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Histological types of invasive breast cancer in 830,000 women diagnosed in England during 1988-2016.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2025Article
- Trends in incidence, prevalence, and survival of breast cancer in the United Kingdom from 2000 to 2021.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Incidence and Short-Term Survival for Common Solid Tumours in the United Kingdom: A Cohort Analysis.Clinical epidemiology · 2024Article
- Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography.European radiology · 2013Article
- Interval cancers in the NHS breast cancer screening programme in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.British journal of cancer · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate screening performance measures in the English screening units that began inviting women aged 65-70 between 1 April 2001 and 1 April 2004. We analysed results after each unit commenced inviting women aged 65-70. In addition, we analysed data from units that invited this age group for a second time between 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2007. Results for women aged 65-70 were compared to women aged 50-64 and 60-64. Average uptake was 72.8% for women aged 65-70 and 76.7% for women aged 50-64. For women screened within the last 5 years, uptake was 88.7% for older women and 89.1% for younger women. For women previously screened within 5 years the invasive cancer detection rate was 17% higher in the 65-70 age group than in the 60-64 age group. The rates of recall to assessment and PPV were 3.5 and 27.6% in women aged 65-70 and 3.4 and 24.6% in women aged 50-64 respectively. These results suggest that, as in the earlier demonstration studies, uptake rates remain high in older women, and many more older women attend following an invitation than had previously self-referred. The cancer detection rate is higher in this older age group, whereas rates of recall are generally similar to those in younger women; consequently the PPV is also higher in older women.
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.