SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011
Screening for breast cancer with mammography.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 115 papers, 10 of them syntheses 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
115 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 310 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening mammography & breast cancer mortality: meta-analysis of quasi-experimental studies.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Is there excess mortality in women screened with mammography: a meta-analysis of non-breast cancer mortality.Trials · 2013Pooled it
- Nutritional screening for improving professional practice for patient outcomes in hospital and primary care settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Interventions to increase the uptake of mammography amongst low income women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review.BMC medical imaging · 2012Pooled it
- Options for early breast cancer follow-up in primary and secondary care - a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2012Pooled it
- Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 40-74 years.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2011Guideline
- A 16-yr Follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.European urology · 2019Trial
- Crowd-figure-pictograms improve women's knowledge about mammography screening: results from a randomised controlled trial.BMC research notes · 2018Trial
- A randomised trial of the effect of postal reminders on attendance for breast screening.British journal of cancer · 2016Trial
- Article
- A comparative study of learning curves among general surgery residents for intraoperative ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Targeting the Oxytocin Receptor for Breast Cancer Management: A Niche for Peptide Tracers.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2024Review
- Expanding mammography screening for women aged 40-80 years: evidence from a modeling approach using real-world data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Preoperative localization of breast lesions: Comparing digital breast tomosynthesis-guided radioactive seed localization versus standard 2D stereotactic radioactive seed localization.Clinical imaging · 2023Article
- A plea for more careful scholarship in reviewing evidence: the case of mammographic screening.BJR open · 2023Review
- Accurate resection of nonpalpable, ultrasonography undetectable breast cancer tumor by preoperative indocyanine green injection using stereotactic mammography: A case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
55 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.
objectivesTo assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PubMed (November 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN
resultsEight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a biased trial and included 600,000 women in the analyses. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials that measured this outcome; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased. AUTHORS'
conclusionsScreening is likely to reduce breast cancer mortality. As the effect was lowest in the adequately randomised trials, a reasonable estimate is a 15% reduction corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.05%. Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk.
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.