Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2009
What is the point: will screening mammography save my life?
Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening for latent tuberculosis infection in patients with chronic kidney disease: a review of evidence and current practice in the UK.Clinical kidney journal · 2025Review
- The impact of circulating protein levels identified by affinity proteomics on short-term, overall breast cancer risk.British journal of cancer · 2024Article
- Article
- Cancer detection in clinical practice and using blood-based liquid biopsy: A retrospective audit of over 350 dogs.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2023Article
- Differential Proteome Analysis of Extracellular Vesicles from Breast Cancer Cell Lines by Chaperone Affinity Enrichment.Proteomes · 2017Article
- Family physicians' intention to support women in making informed decisions about breast cancer screening with mammography: a cross-sectional survey.BMC research notes · 2015Article
- Four Principles to Consider Before Advising Women on Screening Mammography.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2015Review
- Patient experience - the ingredient missing from cost-effectiveness calculations.Patient preference and adherence · 2011Article
- Population-based screening for colorectal cancer with faecal occult blood test--do we really have enough evidence?International journal of colorectal disease · 2010Review
- Commentary on 'what is the point: will screening mammography save my life?' by Keen and Keen.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2009Article
- Comments on John D. Keen and James E. Keen, What is the point: will screening mammography save my life? BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2009.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2009Article
- Guest Editor's Concluding Remarks-Advances in Usage of ANN, Discussion of an Unsolved Problem, and Some Differences between Papers Written by Engineers and by Physicians.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe analyzed the claim "mammography saves lives" by calculating the life-saving absolute benefit of screening mammography in reducing breast cancer mortality in women ages 40 to 65.
methodsTo calculate the absolute benefit, we first estimated the screen-free absolute death risk from breast cancer by adjusting the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program 15-year cumulative breast cancer mortality to account for the separate effects of screening mammography and improved therapy. We calculated the absolute risk reduction (reduction in absolute death risk), the number needed to screen assuming repeated screening, and the survival percentages without and with screening. We varied the relative risk reduction from 10%-30% based on the randomized trials of screening mammography. We developed additional variations of the absolute risk reduction for a screening intervention, including the average benefit of a single screen, as well as the life-saving proportion among patients with earlier cancer detection.
resultsBecause the screen-free absolute death risk is approximately 1% overall but rises with age, the relative risk reduction from repeated screening mammography is about 100 times the absolute risk reduction between the starting ages of 50 and 60. Assuming a base case 20% relative risk reduction, repeated screening starting at age 50 saves about 1.8 (overall range, 0.9-2.7) lives over 15 years for every 1000 women screened. The number needed to screen repeatedly is 1000/1.8, or 570. The survival percentage is 99.12% without and 99.29% with screening. The average benefit of a single screening mammogram is 0.034%, or 2970 women must be screened once to save one life. Mammography saves 4.3% of screen-detectable cancer patients' lives starting at age 50. This means 23 cancers must be found starting at age 50, or 27 cancers at age 40 and 21 cancers at age 65, to save one life.
conclusionThe life-saving absolute benefit of screening mammography increases with age as the absolute death risk increases. The number of events needed to save one life varies depending on the prospective screening subset or reference class. Less than 5% of women with screen-detectable cancers have their lives saved.
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.