ArticleOncology reviews2011
A limited Review of Over Diagnosis Methods and Long Term Effects in Breast Cancer Screening.
Article in Oncology reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Over-detection and over-surveillance in breast screening: current status and the potential for artificial intelligence optimisation.Insights into imaging · 2025Review
- Overdiagnosis across medical disciplines: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Women's views on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2013Article
- Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: time to tackle an underappreciated harm.Annals of internal medicine · 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
Abstract
Breast cancer screening programs have been effective in detecting tumors prior to symptoms. Recently, there has been concern over the issue of over-diagnosis, that is, diagnosis of a breast cancer that does not manifest prior to death. Estimates for over-diagnosis vary, ranging from 7% to 52%. This variability may be due partially to issues associated with bias and/or incorrect inferences associated with the lack of probability modeling. A critical issue is how to evaluate the long-term effects due to continued screening. Participants in a periodic screening program can be classified into four mutually exclusive groups depending on whether individuals are diagnosed and whether their symptoms appear prior to death: True-early-detection; No-early-detection; Over-diagnosis; and Not-so-necessary. All initially superficially healthy people will eventually fall into one of these four categories. This manuscript reviews the major methodologies associated with the over-diagnosis and long-term effects of breast cancer screening.
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.