Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19277039›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2009

Evaluation of extension of breast screening to women aged 65-70 in England using screening performance measures.

R L Bennett, R G Blanks, S M Moss

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R L BennettCancer Screening Evaluation Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK. rachel.bennett@icr.ac.uk
R G Blanks
S M Moss
Institute of Cancer Research · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

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

Mass ScreeningAgedAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsEnglandFemaleHumansMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID19277039
PMCPMC2669999
OpenAlexW2001559038

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.