Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23942604›Full record

ArticleDer Radiologe2013

[Limits of mammography screening: current controversies and perspectives].

K Hellerhoff

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Radiologe, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

K HellerhoffInstitut für Klinische Radiologie, Klinikum der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland, karin.hellerhoff@med.uni-muenchen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years overdiagnosis has been claimed to be a major disadvantage of breast cancer screening. Studies estimating overdiagnosis have shown substantial discrepancies due to differences in the underlying epidemiological methods. Valid estimates based on studies with sufficient follow-up have shown a proportion of overdiagnosis of much less than 10 % of cancer detected by screening. Special attention should be given to intraductal carcinoma in situ as it is a precursor lesion of invasive cancer but the progression potential is poorly understood and it is currently treated similarly to invasive cancer. This highlights the urgent need for better stratification of the disease in research and clinical practice allowing individual risk-adapted appropriate therapy. In this respect new molecular and genetic biomarkers seem to be the most promising approach for predicting disease behavior.Interval carcinoma represents a limitation of breast cancer screening and the impact on screening effectiveness is still unknown. Recent studies have emphasized that interval carcinoma is more aggressive than cancer detected by screening. Hence the occurrence and distribution of interval cancer should be recorded accurately by national cancer registries and evaluated by the screening services. Quality assurance measures may help to reduce the rate of false negative cases to a minimum. Further research focusing on subgroups of screening participants with a higher risk for interval cancer occurrence seems to be a prerequisite for developing future prevention strategies.

Indexed as

Unnecessary ProceduresBreast NeoplasmsDiagnostic ErrorsEarly Detection of CancerEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleGermanyHumansMammographyPrimary PreventionReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

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.