Were our estimates of overdiagnosis with mammography screening in the United States "based on faulty science"?

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

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

1. Breast cancer screening in developing countries.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2017
   Pooled it
2. Screening Mammography Among Older Women: A Review of United States Guidelines and Potential Harms.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2019
   Article
3. The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate.NPJ breast cancer · 2017
   Review
4. Four Principles to Consider Before Advising Women on Screening Mammography.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2015
   Review
5. Overdiagnosis: epidemiologic concepts and estimation.Epidemiology and health · 2015
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Overdiagnosing overdiagnosis.2014
• Comment on
  Arguments against mammography screening continue to be based on faulty science.2014

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as