Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25167224›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2014

A survey study of women's responses to information about overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening in Britain.

J Waller, K L Whitaker, K Winstanley, E Power, J Wardle

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018
    Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Procedure for Eliciting Women's Preferences for Breast Cancer Screening Frequency.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. How Do Women Interpret the NHS Information Leaflet about Cervical Cancer Screening?Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

J WallerHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
K L WhitakerHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
K WinstanleyHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
E PowerCancer Research UK, Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London EC1V 4AD, UK.
J WardleHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is concern about public understanding of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening, and uncertainty about the likely impact on screening participation.

methodsIn a population-based survey of 2272 women, we assessed understanding of overdiagnosis and screening intentions before and after exposure to an explanation of overdiagnosis, and one of the three information formats providing an estimate of the rate of overdiagnosis based on the findings of the UK Independent Review.

resultsSubjective and objective comprehension of overdiagnosis was moderate across information formats (64% and 57%, respectively). Following overdiagnosis information, 7% of women showed a decrease in screening intention, with a stronger effect among women below screening age (<47 years), and receiving the estimate of the rate of overdiagnosis in a simple ratio format (one life saved to three overdiagnoses).

conclusionsBrief written information on overdiagnosis was incompletely understood, but reduced breast screening intentions in a proportion of women, regardless of comprehension. Subjective comprehension was lower among women who had not yet reached screening age but the deterrent effect was higher.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthDiagnostic ErrorsAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsData CollectionEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMammographyMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrognosis

Identifiers

PMID25167224
PMCPMC4453735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.