ArticleHealth care management science2011
Tumour doubling times and the length bias in breast cancer screening programmes.
Article in Health care management science, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Article
- Operational research techniques applied throughout cancer care services: a review.Health systems (Basingstoke, England) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening for early detection of breast cancer is considered to be an important element of preventive medicine. In this paper, we use numerical simulations to examine the length bias in regular interval screening programmes, by computing the doubling times of breast cancer tumours detected through regular mammographies compared to self-detection. Our analysis shows that doubling times of tumours detected by a regular screening programme are longer than doubling times in the original whole population and considerably longer than those self-detected. Hence regular interval mammographies may be missing a high proportion of fast growing tumours and therefore the benefits of current screening programmes may need to be re-evaluated. We examine the likely size of the length bias for the present UK breast cancer screening programme and perform a sensitivity analysis by varying the screen detection probabilities to reflect future advances in mammographic detection.
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.