ArticleBMJ open2014
Overdetection in breast cancer screening: development and preliminary evaluation of a decision aid.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Informing Women About Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Two-Year Outcomes From a Randomized Trial.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Evaluation of how US women react to a decision aid informing them of the harms and benefits of mammography: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Designing a decision aid for cancer prevention: a qualitative study.Family practice · 2024Article
- Working together with people with intellectual disability to make a difference: a protocol for a mixed-method co-production study to address inequities in cervical screening participation.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- What do women and healthcare professionals expect of decision aids for breast cancer screening? A qualitative study in France.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Using a Deliberative Poll on breast cancer screening to assess and improve the decision quality of laypeople.PloS one · 2021Article
- A shared decision-making tool for individuals living with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome.Seminars in pediatric surgery · 2019Article
- Article
- Development and use of a content search strategy for retrieving studies on patients' views and preferences.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2017Article
- Article
- Development of a communication aid for explaining hypertrophic cardiomyopathy genetic test results.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2017Article
- Article
- Beyond the mammography debate: a moderate perspective.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop, pilot and refine a decision aid (ahead of a randomised trial evaluation) for women around age 50 facing their initial decision about whether to undergo mammography screening.
designTwo-stage mixed-method pilot study including qualitative interviews (n=15) and a randomised comparison using a quantitative survey (n=34).
settingNew South Wales, Australia.
participantsWomen aged 43-59 years with no personal history of breast cancer.
interventionsThe decision aid provides evidence-based information about important outcomes of mammography screening over 20 years (breast cancer mortality reduction, overdetection and false positives) compared with no screening. The information is presented in a short booklet for women, combining text and visual formats. A control version produced for the purposes of comparison omits the overdetection-related content. OUTCOMES: Comprehension of key decision aid content and acceptability of the materials.
resultsMost women considered the decision aid clear and helpful and would recommend it to others. Nonetheless, the piloting process raised important issues that we tried to address in iterative revisions. Some participants found it hard to understand overdetection and why it is of concern, while there was often confusion about the distinction between overdetection and false positives. In a screening context, encountering balanced information rather than persuasion appears to be contrary to people's expectations, but women appreciated the opportunity to become better informed.
conclusionsThe concept of overdetection is complex and new to the public. This study highlights some key challenges for communicating about this issue. It is important to clarify that overdetection differs from false positives in terms of its more serious consequences (overtreatment and associated harms). Screening decision aids also must clearly explain their purpose of facilitating informed choice. A staged approach to development and piloting of decision aids is recommended to further improve understanding of overdetection and support informed decision-making about screening.
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.