ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2012
Breast cancer screening: the questions answered.
Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using an informed consent in mammography screening: a randomized trial.Cancer medicine · 2015Trial
- A Generative Foundation Model for Scalable Cytology Image Synthesis in AI-Powered Diagnostics.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026Article
- Framing overdiagnosis in breast screening: a qualitative study with Australian experts.BMC cancer · 2015Article
- Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change.The Lancet. Oncology · 2014Article
- Earlier diagnosis of breast cancer: focusing on symptomatic women.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2013Article
- Mammography screening and women with symptomatic breast cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2013Article
- Earlier diagnosis of breast cancer outside of a screening programme.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early detection of cancer has long been thought to be the first step towards eradicating the mortality associated with the disease. National screening programmes for breast cancer have been implemented in many countries. However, there is controversy regarding the efficacy and optimal methods of screening, which is regularly discussed in articles, at conferences and is apparent in conflicting guidelines. In this article, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology asks four experts their opinions on some of the pressing questions associated with breast cancer screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22889976What 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.