ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2011
The breast screening programme and misinforming the public.
Review in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- A survey study of women's responses to information about overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening in Britain.British journal of cancer · 2014Trial
- Screening programmes and breast cancer mortality: an observational study of 194 countries.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025Observational
- Article
- Online information about mammography screening in Italy from 2014 to 2021.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2021Article
- Sustainability of Publicly Funded Health Care Systems: What Does Behavioural Economics Offer?PharmacoEconomics · 2020Review
- Online information about risks and benefits of screening mammography in 10 European countries: An observational Web sites analysis.Medicine · 2018Observational
- A Review and Comparative Analysis of Information Targeted to the General Public on the Websites of Breast Screening Programs in Canada.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2017Review
- Article
- Does a decision aid improve informed choice in mammography screening? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.BMC women's health · 2015Article
- The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.British journal of cancer · 2013Review
- 'Overdiagnosis' and mortality in breast cancer screening.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2012Article
- Breast screening review--a radiologist's perspective.The British journal of radiology · 2012Review
- Misplaced criticism of breast screening research.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The information provided to the public by the NHS Breast Screening Programme has been criticized for lack of balance, omission of information on harms and substantially exaggerated estimates of benefit. These shortcomings have been particularly evident in the various invitation leaflets for breast screening and in the Programme's own 2008 Annual Review, which celebrated 20 years of screening. The debate on screening has been heated after new data published in the last two years questioned the benefit and documented substantial harm. We therefore analysed whether the recent debate and new pivotal data about breast screening has had any impact on the contents of the new 2010 leaflet and on the 2010 Annual Review. We conclude that spokespeople for the Programme have stuck to the beliefs about benefit that prevailed 25 years ago. Concerns about over-diagnosis have not been addressed either and official documents still downplay this most important harm of breast cancer screening.
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.