Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25483105›Full record

ArticleJournal of epidemiology2015

An analysis of mass screening strategies using a mathematical model: comparison of breast cancer screening in Japan and the United States.

Miwako Tsunematsu, Masayuki Kakehashi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cancer prevention: state of the art and future prospects.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2015
    Review
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

2 authors.

Miwako TsunematsuDepartment of Health Informatics, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences Hiroshima University.
Masayuki Kakehashi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) downgraded their recommendation for breast cancer screening for women aged 40-49 years in 2009, Japanese women in their 40s have been encouraged to attend breast cancer screenings since 2004. The aim of this study is to examine whether these different mass-screening strategies are justifiable by the different situations of these countries and to provide evidence for suitable judgment.

methodsPerformance of screening strategies (annual/biennial intervals; initiating/terminating ages) was evaluated using a mathematical model based on the natural history of breast cancer and the transition between its stages. Benefits (reduced number of deaths and extended average life expectancy) and harm (false-positives) associated with these strategies were calculated.

resultsAdditional average life expectancy by including women in their 40s as participants were 13 days (26%) and 25 days (22%) in Japan and the United States, respectively, under the biennial screening condition; however, the respective increases in numbers of false-positive cases were 65% and 53% in Japan and the United States. Moreover, the number of screenings needed to detect one diagnosis or to avert one death was smaller when participants were limited to women of age 50 or over than when women in their 40s were included. The validity of including women in their 40s in Japan could not be determined without specifying the weight of harms compared to benefits.

conclusionsWhether screening of women in their 40s in Japan is justifiable must be carefully determined based the quantitative balance of benefits and harms.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansJapanLife ExpectancyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentUnited States

Identifiers

PMID25483105
PMCPMC4310878

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.