Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21519892›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2011

Residual confounding after adjustment for age: a minor issue in breast cancer screening effectiveness.

Guido van Schoor, Ellen Paap, Mireille J M Broeders, André L M Verbeek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Guido van SchoorDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and HTA, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands. g.vanschoor@ebh.umcn.nl
Ellen Paap
Mireille J M Broeders
André L M Verbeek

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Residual confounding, after adjustment for age, is the major criticism of observational studies on breast cancer screening effectiveness. We developed realistic scenarios for the prevalence and strength of risk factors on screened and not screened groups, and explored the impact of residual confounding bias. Our results demonstrate that residual confounding bias is a minor issue in screening programme evaluations.

Indexed as

Age FactorsBreast NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicData Interpretation, StatisticalEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningNational Health ProgramsNetherlandsPredictive Value of TestsRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID21519892
PMCPMC3168749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.