Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23420062›Full record

ReviewMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2013

Breast cancer screening: review of benefits and harms, and recommendations for developing and low-income countries.

Meteb Al-Foheidi, Mubarak M Al-Mansour, Ezzeldin M Ibrahim

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Optical imaging for breast cancer prescreening.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2015
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Meteb Al-FoheidiPrincess Noorah Oncology Center, King Abdulaziz Medical City, PO Box 9515, Jeddah 21423, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Mubarak M Al-Mansour
Ezzeldin M Ibrahim

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. The disease remains a public health concern as recent evidence indicates that the breast cancer burden has increased mainly in developing and low-income countries (DLICs). Despite the demonstrated benefits, the debate about the real benefits and harms of breast cancer screening is ongoing. Many experts believe that the benefits of screening, in terms of reduced breast cancer mortality, outweigh the harms, whereas others think the opposite. In this review, we assess the clinical utility of available screening modalities, present evidence, overdiagnosis, cost-effectiveness, and other pertinent issues. We also examine relevant data from DLICs to underscore the barriers and challenges that impede implementation of screening strategies in those populations. We also provide recommendations concerning rational preventive strategies for breast cancer control for women in DLICs.

Indexed as

Health Planning GuidelinesBreast NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisDeveloping CountriesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyPovertyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

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.