Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25127662›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2014

Women's participation in breast cancer screening in France--an ethical approach.

Grégoire Moutel, Nathalie Duchange, Sylviane Darquy, Sandrine de Montgolfier, Frédérique Papin-Lefebvre, Odile Jullian, Jérôme Viguier, Hélène Sancho-Garnier, GRED French National Cancer Institute

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

9 authors.

Grégoire MoutelAssistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Universitaire Georges Pompidou Corentin-Celton, Université Paris Descartes, 92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux, France. gregoire.moutel@parisdescartes.fr.
Nathalie Duchange
Sylviane Darquy
Sandrine de Montgolfier
Frédérique Papin-Lefebvre
Odile Jullian
Jérôme Viguier
Hélène Sancho-Garnier
GRED French National Cancer Institute

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer is a major public health challenge. Organized mammography screening (OS) is considered one way to reduce breast cancer mortality. EU recommendations prone mass deployment of OS, and back in 2004, France introduced a national OS programme for women aged 50-74 years. However, in 2012, participation rate was still just 52.7%, well short of the targeted 70% objective. In an effort to re-address the (in) efficiency of the programme, the French National Cancer Institute has drafted an expert-group review of the ethical issues surrounding breast cancer mammography screening. DISCUSSION: Prompted by emerging debate over the efficiency of the screening scheme and its allied public information provision, we keynote the experts' report based on analysis of epidemiological data and participation rate from the public health authorities. The low coverage of the OS scheme may be partly explained by the fact that a significant number of women undergo mammography outside OS and thus outside OS criteria. These findings call for further thinking on (i) the ethical principles of beneficence and non-malfeasance underpinning this public health initiative, (ii) the reasons behind women's and professionals' behavior, and (iii) the need to analyze how information provision to women and the doctor-patient relationship need to evolve in response to scientific controversy over the risks and benefits of conducting mammographic screening. SUMMARY: This work calls for a reappraisal of the provision of screening programme information. We advocate a move to integrate the points sparking debate over the efficiency of the screening scheme to guarantee full transparency. The perspective is to strengthen the respect for autonomy allowing women to make an informed choice in their decision on whether or not to participate.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CarePatient ParticipationPersonal AutonomyPhysician-Patient RelationsAccess to InformationAgedBreast NeoplasmsChoice BehaviorEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFranceHumansInformed ConsentMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID25127662
PMCPMC4151080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.