ArticleBritish journal of cancer2014
Overdiagnosis due to breast cancer screening: updated estimates of the Helsinki service study in Finland.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of expanding the target population of biennial screening for breast cancer from ages 50-69 to 45 and/or 74: A cohort modelling study in the Finnish setting.Health economics review · 2025Article
- The Analysis of Plasma Proteomics for Luminal A Breast Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Overdiagnosis Due to Screening Mammography for Breast Cancer among Women Aged 40 Years and Over: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- A Panel of Tumor-associated Autoantibodies for the Detection of Early-stage Breast Cancer.Journal of Cancer · 2021Article
- Review
- Impact of organised mammography screening on breast cancer mortality in a case-control and cohort study.British journal of cancer · 2016Article
- Mammography screening in three Finnish residential areas: comprehensive population-based study of breast cancer incidence and incidence-based mortality 1976-2009.British journal of cancer · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOverdiagnosis is the most important adverse event of breast cancer screening with the estimates ranging from 0% to 40-50% depending on invitational age and methods. We updated the estimates of overdiagnosis in Helsinki service screening study in Finland by comparing the observed and expected cumulative incidence of all breast carcinomas and invasive breast carcinomas.
methodsWomen aged 50-59 years have been invited to Helsinki service screening since 1986. The incidence of breast carcinoma in the first invited birth cohorts born in 1935-1939 was compared with older, non-invited cohorts. The minimum follow-up time of the invitees after the last screening round was 14 years. Expected cumulative incidence rates were estimated with two alternative approaches.
resultsFor both any breast carcinoma and invasive breast carcinoma, the estimates of overdiagnosis varied from 5% (95% CI=-1, 11%) to 7% (95% CI=1, 13%) depending on the approach.
conclusionsOur estimates of overdiagnosis are of the same magnitude than other plausible estimates in Europe. Both alternative approaches produced similar estimates for the expected cumulative incidence, which increased the confidence in the estimates of overdiagnosis.
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.