Comments and response on the USPSTF recommendation on screening for breast cancer.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Choosing Breast Cancer Risk Models: Importance of Independent Validation.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020
   Article
2. Twenty-five years of breast cancer risk models and their applications.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2015
   Article
3. Translating medical evidence to promote informed health care decisions.Health services research · 2011
   Article
4. Personalized estimates of breast cancer risk in clinical practice and public health.Statistics in medicine · 2011
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.2009

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as