Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23344309›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2013

Women's views on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study.

Jolyn Hersch, Jesse Jansen, Alexandra Barratt, Les Irwig, Nehmat Houssami, Kirsten Howard, Haryana Dhillon, Kirsten McCaffery

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

104 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 193 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Operationalizing and Measuring Informed Choice in Health Care: An Umbrella Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018
    Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Why Most Australians Consider It Valuable to Find Harmless Abnormalities with Diagnostic Tests: A Mixed-Methods Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article

44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jolyn HerschScreening and Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Jesse Jansen
Alexandra Barratt
Les Irwig
Nehmat Houssami
Kirsten Howard
Haryana Dhillon
Kirsten McCaffery
University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo elicit women's responses to information about the nature and extent of overdiagnosis in mammography screening (detecting disease that would not present clinically during the woman's lifetime) and explore how awareness of overdiagnosis might influence attitudes and intentions about screening.

designQualitative study using focus groups that included a presentation explaining overdiagnosis, incorporating different published estimates of its rate (1-10%, 30%, 50%) and information on the mortality benefit of screening, with guided group discussions

settingSydney, Australia

participantsFifty women aged 40-79 years with no personal history of breast cancer and with varying levels of education and participation in screening.

resultsPrior awareness of breast cancer overdiagnosis was minimal. Women generally reacted with surprise, but most came to understand the issue. Responses to overdiagnosis and the different estimates of its magnitude were diverse. The highest estimate (50%) made some women perceive a need for more careful personal decision making about screening. In contrast, the lower and intermediate estimates (1-10% and 30%) had limited impact on attitudes and intentions, with many women remaining committed to screening. For some women, the information raised concerns, not about whether to screen but whether to treat a screen detected cancer or consider alternative approaches (such as watchful waiting). Information preferences varied: many women considered it important to take overdiagnosis into account and make informed choices about whether to have screening, but many wanted to be encouraged to be screened.

conclusionsWomen from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds could comprehend the issue of overdiagnosis in mammography screening, and they generally valued information about it. Effects on screening intentions may depend heavily on the rate of overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis will be new and counterintuitive for many people and may influence screening and treatment decisions in unintended ways, underscoring the need for careful communication.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleHumansMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID23344309
PMCPMC3552499
OpenAlexW2079464719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.