SynthesisCancer science2015
A meta-analysis of mammographic screening with and without clinical breast examination.
Synthesis in Cancer science, 2015. 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, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast Cancer Screening Participation and Internet Search Activity in a Japanese Population: Decade-Long Time-Series Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Characteristics of breast cancers detected by screening mammography in Taiwan: a single institute's experience.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- A Privacy-Preserving Distributed Medical Data Integration Security System for Accuracy Assessment of Cancer Screening: Development Study of Novel Data Integration System.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Coronary Artery Calcium Score: the "Mammogram" of the Heart?Current cardiology reports · 2018Review
- Ultrasound Imaging Technologies for Breast Cancer Detection and Management: A Review.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 2018Review
- Evaluation of the knowledge of women and registered nurses in Japan regarding the benefits and risks of breast cancer screening.Journal of rural medicine : JRM · 2017Article
- What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening? A protocol of a systematic review of reviews.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mammographic screening with clinical breast examination has been recommended in Japan since 2000. Although mammographic screening without clinical breast examination has not been recommended, its introduction is anticipated. The efficacies of mammographic screening with and without clinical breast examination were evaluated based on the results of randomized controlled trials. PubMed and other databases for studies published between 1985 and 2014 were searched. The study design was limited to randomized controlled trials to evaluate mortality reduction from breast cancer. Five studies were eligible for meta-analysis of mammographic screening without clinical breast examination. The relative risk for women aged 40-74 years was 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.83). Three studies evaluated the efficacy of mammographic screening with clinical breast examination. The relative risk for women aged 40-64 years was 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.98). The number needed to invite was always lower in mammographic screening without clinical breast examination than in mammographic screening with clinical breast examination. In both screening methods, the number needed to invite was higher in women aged 40-49 years than in women aged 50-70 years. These results suggest that mammographic screening without clinical breast examination can afford higher benefits to women aged 50 years and over. Although evidence of the efficacy of mammographic screening without clinical breast examination was confirmed based on the results of the randomized controlled trials, a Japanese study is needed to resolve local problems.
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.