Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19589821›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2009

Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends.

Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Peter C Gøtzsche

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 157 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
157citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

157 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Screening with urinary dipsticks for reducing morbidity and mortality.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Screening for breast cancer with mammography.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Use of AI Histopathology in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025
    Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

97 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Karsten Juhl JørgensenThe Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Dept 3343, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. kj@cochrane.dk
Peter C Gøtzsche

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate the extent of overdiagnosis (the detection of cancers that will not cause death or symptoms) in publicly organised screening programmes.

designSystematic review of published trends in incidence of breast cancer before and after the introduction of mammography screening. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (April 2007), reference lists, and authors. Review methods One author extracted data on incidence of breast cancer (including carcinoma in situ), population size, screening uptake, time periods, and age groups, which were checked independently by the other author. Linear regression was used to estimate trends in incidence before and after the introduction of screening and in older, previously screened women. Meta-analysis was used to estimate the extent of overdiagnosis.

resultsIncidence data covering at least seven years before screening and seven years after screening had been fully implemented, and including both screened and non-screened age groups, were available from the United Kingdom; Manitoba, Canada; New South Wales, Australia; Sweden; and parts of Norway. The implementation phase with its prevalence peak was excluded and adjustment made for changing background incidence and compensatory drops in incidence among older, previously screened women. Overdiagnosis was estimated at 52% (95% confidence interval 46% to 58%). Data from three countries showed a drop in incidence as the women exceeded the age limit for screening, but the reduction was small and the estimate of overdiagnosis was compensated for in this review.

conclusionsThe increase in incidence of breast cancer was closely related to the introduction of screening and little of this increase was compensated for by a drop in incidence of breast cancer in previously screened women. One in three breast cancers detected in a population offered organised screening is overdiagnosed.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsDiagnostic ErrorsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansIncidenceMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID19589821
PMCPMC2714679

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.