Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23720226›Full record

ArticleCancer2013

Breast cancer mortality in participants of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Solveig Hofvind, Giske Ursin, Steinar Tretli, Sofie Sebuødegård, Bjørn Møller

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03928886 (Discomfort Assessment of Senographe Pristina Patient-assisted Versus Standard Compression Mode in Asymptomatic Adult Women Undergoing Screening Full-filled Digital Mammography and Quality Evaluation of Screening Mammograms), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT03928886 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Discomfort Assessment of Senographe Pristina Patient-assisted Versus Standard Compression Mode in Asymptomatic Adult Women Undergoing Screening Full-filled Digital Mammography and Quality Evaluation of Screening Mammograms

TypeinterventionalSponsorParc de Salut MarRan2017 to 2020Enrolled500ConditionsMammography Related DiscomfortArmsbilateral two-view (CC and MLO) FFDM (full field digital mammography) using patient-assisted compression mode, bilateral two-view (CC and MLO) FFDM (full field digital mammography) using standard compression mode
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Misinformation and Facts about Breast Cancer Screening.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Modes of Early Detection of Breast Cancer in Katowice Region, Poland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Solveig HofvindDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway; Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
Giske Ursin
Steinar Tretli
Sofie Sebuødegård
Bjørn Møller

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program started in 1996. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report using individual-based data on invitation and participation to analyze breast cancer mortality among screened and nonscreened women in the program.

methodsInformation on dates of invitation, attendance, breast cancer diagnosis, emigration, death, and cause of death was linked by using unique 11-digit personal identification numbers assigned all inhabitants of Norway at birth or immigration. In total, 699,628 women ages 50 to 69 years without prior a diagnosis of breast cancer were invited to the program from 1996 to 2009 and were followed for breast cancer through 2009 and death through 2010. Incidence-based breast cancer mortality rate ratios (MRRs) were compared between the screened and nonscreened cohorts using a Poisson regression model. The MRRs were adjusted for calendar period, attained age, years since inclusion in the cohorts, and self-selection bias.

resultsThe crude breast cancer mortality rate was 20.7 per 100,000 women-years for the screened cohort compared with 39.7 per 100,000 women-years for the nonscreened cohort, resulting in an MRR of 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.59). The mortality reduction associated with attendance in the program was 43% (MRR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.64) after adjusting for calendar period, attained age, years after inclusion in the cohort, and self-selection bias.

conclusionsAfter 15 years of follow-up, a 43% reduction in mortality was observed among women who attended the national mammographic screening program in Norway.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMammographyMass ScreeningAgedBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceMiddle AgedNorwayRegistriesSelection BiasSurvival Ratebreast neoplasms/mortalitybreast neoplasms/prevention and controlbreast neoplasms/radiographyfemalemammographymass screeningNorway/epidemiology

Identifiers

PMID23720226
PMCPMC4288930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.