Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19920272›Full record

GuidelineAnnals of internal medicine2009

Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

US Preventive Services Task Force

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Annals of internal medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 581 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
581citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
61.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

581 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,553 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Systematic Review of Mammography Screening Educational Interventions for Hispanic Women in the United States.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Breast cancer screening in developing countries.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2017
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Individual-Level Trends in Mammography Screening over 14 years: Results from an All-Payer Statewide Claims Database.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

US Preventive Services Task Forcethe U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

descriptionUpdate of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer in the general population.

methodsThe USPSTF examined the evidence on the efficacy of 5 screening modalities in reducing mortality from breast cancer: film mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging in order to update the 2002 recommendation. To accomplish this update, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review of 6 selected questions relating to benefits and harms of screening, and 2) a decision analysis that used population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of starting and ending mammography screening at different ages and using annual versus biennial screening intervals. RECOMMENDATIONS: The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. (I statement).

Indexed as

AdultAgedAge FactorsAnxietyBreast NeoplasmsBreast Self-ExaminationEarly Detection of CancerFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPalpation

Identifiers

PMID19920272
OpenAlexW2579520182

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.