ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2014
Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines.
Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.
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
32 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Femoral Head Pathology in Subcapital Hip Fractures: Clinical Value and Cost-Effectiveness in a 230-Patient Case Series.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Guiding principles for the responsible development of artificial intelligence tools for healthcare.Communications medicine · 2023Review
- Cost-effectiveness of screening mammography in a low income country: a Markov simulation analysis.BMC medical imaging · 2021Article
- The role of sex and rurality in cancer fatalistic beliefs and cancer screening utilization in Florida.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- The State of Radiology AI: Considerations for Purchase Decisions and Current Market Offerings.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2020Article
- Variation in Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations by Primary Care Providers Surveyed in Wisconsin.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Use and Costs of Breast Cancer Screening for Women in Their 40s in a US Population With Private Insurance.JAMA internal medicine · 2020Article
- Value of digital mammography in predicting lymphovascular invasion of breast cancer.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- Evaluation of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Radiologist Assessment to Interpret Screening Mammograms.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Utilization and Cost of Mammography Screening Among Commercially Insured Women 50 to 64 Years of Age in the United States, 2012-2016.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2020Article
- Willingness to decrease mammogram frequency among women at low risk for hereditary breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Breast MRI screening for average-risk women: A monte carlo simulation cost-benefit analysis.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2019Article
- Systemic overuse of health care in a commercially insured US population, 2010-2015.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Use of Mastectomy for Overdiagnosed Breast Cancer in the United States: Analysis of the SEER 9 Cancer Registries.Journal of cancer epidemiology · 2019Article
- Integrated bioinformatics analysis reveals key candidate genes and pathways in breast cancer.Molecular medicine reports · 2018Article
- Evolution of Premalignant Disease.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2017Review
- The Complexity of Achieving the Promise of Precision Breast Cancer Screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2017Article
- Screening Mammography Use Among Older Women Before and After the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2016Article
- The value of routine pharmacogenomic screening-Are we there yet? A perspective on the costs and benefits of routine screening-shouldn't everyone have this done?Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundControversy exists over how often and at what age mammography screening should be implemented. Given that evidence supports less frequent screening, the cost differences among advocated screening policies should be better understood.
objectiveTo estimate the aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States in 2010 and compare the costs of policy recommendations by professional organizations.
designA model was developed to estimate the cost of mammography screening in 2010 and 3 screening strategies: annual (ages 40 to 84 years), biennial (ages 50 to 69 years), and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines (biennial for those aged 50 to 74 years and personalized based on risk for those younger than 50 years and based on comorbid conditions for those 75 years and older).
settingUnited States. PATIENTS: Women aged 40 to 85 years.
interventionMammography annually, biennially, or following USPSTF guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Cost of screening per year, using Medicare reimbursements.
resultsThe estimated cost of mammography screening in the United States in 2010 was $7.8 billion, with approximately 70% of women screened. The simulated cost of screening 85% of women was $10.1 billion, $2.6 billion, and $3.5 billion for annual, biennial, and USPSTF guidelines, respectively. The largest drivers of cost (in order) were screening frequency, percentage of women screened, cost of mammography, percentage of women screened with digital mammography, and percentage of mammography recalls. LIMITATION: Cost estimates and assumptions used in the model were conservative.
conclusionThe cost of mammography varies by at least $8 billion per year on the basis of screening strategy. The USPSTF guidelines are based on the scientific evidence to date to maximize patient benefit and minimize harm but also result in far more effective use of resources. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: University of California and the Safeway Foundation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.