ReviewCurrent oncology reports2011
Breast cancer screening with mammography.
Review in Current oncology reports, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Night-shift work duration and breast cancer risk: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC women's health · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of High-Risk Breast Cancer Screenings with Concurrent Versus Staggered Breast MRI and Mammogram Schedules.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of pathologic characteristics of breast cancer in younger and older women.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2019Article
- Impact of a decision aid on reducing uncertainty: pilot study of women in their 40s and screening mammography.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Article
- Do Appalachian women attending a mobile mammography program differ from those visiting a stationary mammography facility?Journal of community health · 2013Article
- The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.British journal of cancer · 2013Review
- Screening prior to Breast Cancer Diagnosis: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same.International journal of breast cancer · 2013Article
- Combined performance of physical examination, mammography, and ultrasonography for breast cancer screening among Chinese women: a follow-up study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2012Article
- Factors influencing adherence to mammography screening guidelines in Appalachian women participating in a mobile mammography program.Journal of community health · 2012Article
- Mental illness and use of screening mammography among Medicaid beneficiaries.American journal of preventive medicine · 2012Article
- Healthcare access and mammography screening in Michigan: a multilevel cross-sectional study.International journal for equity in health · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There has been a great deal of controversy regarding the change in breast cancer screening recommendations released by the US Preventive Services Task Force in November 2009. Despite limited new data, the Task Force changed their previous recommendations delaying initial screening of asymptomatic women from age 40 to age 50 and recommending biennial rather than annual breast cancer screening. It is important to fully understand the nuances of the analysis and modeling upon which the revisions were based in order to accurately inform patients of the risks and benefits of breast cancer screening. Several new studies as well as additional guidelines have also been released over the past year which further inform the debate, and a number of commentaries have helped to place the risks and benefit in clinical and societal context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21108025What 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.