ArticleIranian journal of public health2013
Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening using mammography; a systematic review.
Article in Iranian journal of public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health Economic Evaluations of Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Systematic Review Focusing on Methodology and Quality Assessment.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic reviews as a "lens of evidence": Determinants of cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening.Cancer medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Nutritional screening for improving professional practice for patient outcomes in hospital and primary care settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Evaluation of skin cancer screening in Germany - a Microsimulation.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2025Article
- A Scoping Review of 20 Years Breast Cancer Screening Programs in Iran.Iranian journal of public health · 2025Review
- Breast Cancer Screening Should Embrace Precision Medicine: Evidence by Reviewing Economic Evaluations in China.Advances in therapy · 2023Review
- Current Situation of Diagnosis and Treatment of HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients in China: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey of Doctors.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Cost of breast cancer care in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocol.JBI evidence synthesis · 2021Article
- Economic Evaluations of Breast Cancer Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.The oncologist · 2021Article
- Real-World Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated with Palbociclib for HR-Positive/HER2 Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Commentary.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Review
- Targeting breast cancer outcomes-what about the primary relatives?Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2017Article
- Model-based Recursive Partitioning for Survival of Iranian Female Breast Cancer Patients: Comparing with Parametric Survival Models.Iranian journal of public health · 2017Article
- A review of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is the leading cause of malignancy among women. Screening using mammography is proposed as an effective intervention for reducing early deaths due to breast cancer. We conducted a systematic review to assess the cost-effectiveness of such screening programs. We searched Medline, Scopus and Google Scholar and complemented it by other searches using sensitive search terms from 1993-2010. We screened the titles and abstracts, assessed the full texts of the remaining studies, and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction sheet. Studies were categorized according to the age groups of the target population. We used narrative synthesis approaches for analyzing the data. Twenty-eight articles met the minimum inclusion criteria, mostly from high income settings. All studies used secondary data, and a variety of modeling techniques, age groups, screening intervals and outcome measures. Cost per life year gained, ranging from $1,634 (once at the age of 50 in India) to $65,000 (extending the lower age limit of screening to 40 Australian study), was the most commonly used outcome measure. Biennial screening test for those aged 50-70 years seems to be the most cost-effective option ($2685). Biennial screening for aged 50-70 years is the most cost-effective option among alternative scenarios. Screening those aged less than 50 is not recommended. Further studies in low-income and middle-income countries, and cost effectiveness studies along with randomized trials are required. To improve the comparability of the findings, future studies should include biennial screening in 50-70 age groups as an alternative strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23785673PMC3684720What 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.