SynthesisPloS one2014
Screening mammography & breast cancer mortality: meta-analysis of quasi-experimental studies.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic reviews as a 'lens of evidence': Determinants of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.International journal of cancer · 2019Pooled it
- Mammography Adherence in African-American Women: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2016Trial
- Effect of age of initiation of mammography breast cancer screening.Ecancermedicalscience · 2024Article
- Correlation of the BI-RADS assessment categories of Papua New Guinean women with mammographic parenchymal patterns, age and diagnosis.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2020Article
- Mammography service screening and breast cancer mortality in New Zealand: a National Cohort Study 1999-2011.British journal of cancer · 2017Article
- Community health worker interventions are key to optimal infant immunization coverage, evidence from a pretest-posttest experiment in Mwingi, Kenya.The Pan African medical journal · 2017Article
- Societal costs and effects of implementing population-based mammography screening in Greenland.International journal of circumpolar health · 2017Article
- Prevalence of persistent pain after breast cancer treatment by detection mode among participants in population-based screening programs.BMC cancer · 2016Article
- Spiro[pyrrolidine-3, 3´-oxindole] as potent anti-breast cancer compounds: Their design, synthesis, biological evaluation and cellular target identification.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Effect of organised mammography screening on stage-specific incidence in Norway: population study.British journal of cancer · 2016Article
- Mammography, Martin Yaffe, and me: response and appreciation.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2015Article
- Benefits and harms of mammography screening.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2015Review
- Portable Electrical Impedance Prescreening for Breast tissue suspicious for malignancy: Model Optimization and Clinical Performance of the Julieta Device in a Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study in Colombia.Technology in cancer research & treatmentObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe magnitude of the benefit associated with screening has been debated. We present a meta-analysis of quasi-experimental studies on the effects of mammography screening.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase for articles published through January 31, 2013. Studies were included if they reported: 1) a population-wide breast cancer screening program using mammography with 5+ years of data post-implementation; 2) a comparison group with equal access to therapies; and 3) breast cancer mortality. Studies excluded were: RCTs, case-control, or simulation studies. We defined quasi-experimental as studies that compared either geographical, historical or birth cohorts with a screening program to an equivalent cohort without a screening program. Meta-analyses were conducted in Stata using the metan command, random effects. Meta-analyses were conducted separately for ages screened: under 50, 50 to 69 and over 70 and weighted by population and person-years.
resultsAmong 4,903 published papers that were retrieved, 19 studies matched eligibility criteria. Birth cohort studies reported a significant benefit for women screened <age 50, but not for women screened ages 50-69. Significant reductions in breast cancer mortality were observed in historical comparisons. For geographical comparisons, there was a significant 20% reduction in mortality for women <age 50 and a significant 21-22% reduction for women ages 50-69. Studies that tested the interaction of geographical and historical comparisons produced a pooled, significant 13-17% reduction in incident breast cancer mortality for women ages 50-69, but the effects in most individual studies were non-significant. All studies of women ages 70+ were non-significant.
conclusionsMammography screening may have modest effects on cancer mortality between the ages of 50 and 69 and non-significant effects for women older than age 70. Results are consistent with meta-analyses of RCTs. Effects on total mortality could not be assessed because of the limited number of studies.
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.