Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26079301›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2015

Ethnicity, deprivation and screening: survival from breast cancer among screening-eligible women in the West Midlands diagnosed from 1989 to 2011.

M Morris, L M Woods, N Rogers, E O'Sullivan, O Kearins, B Rachet

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Late-Stage Diagnosis of Breast Cancer in Brazil: Analysis of Data from Hospital-Based Cancer Registries (2000-2012).Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2018
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

M MorrisCancer Research UK Cancer Survival Group, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, London WC1E 7HT, UK.
L M WoodsCancer Research UK Cancer Survival Group, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, London WC1E 7HT, UK.
N RogersWest Midlands Breast Screening Quality Assurance Reference Centre, Public Health England, 5 St Philip's Place, Birmingham B3 2PW, UK.
E O'SullivanWest Midlands Breast Screening Quality Assurance Reference Centre, Public Health England, 5 St Philip's Place, Birmingham B3 2PW, UK.
O KearinsWest Midlands Breast Screening Quality Assurance Reference Centre, Public Health England, 5 St Philip's Place, Birmingham B3 2PW, UK.
B RachetCancer Research UK Cancer Survival Group, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, London WC1E 7HT, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14031Cancer Research UK 18525Cancer Research UK C23409/A14031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial inequalities in breast cancer survival are smaller when the cancer is screen-detected. We examined survival from screen-detected and non screen-detected breast cancer by ethnicity and deprivation.

methodsCancer registry data for 20 283 women aged 50-70 years, diagnosed between 1989-2011 and invited for screening, were linked with screening and ethnicity data. We examined Asian, Black and White groups, less deprived and middle/more deprived women. Net survival was estimated using ethnic- and deprivation-specific life tables. Estimates were corrected for lead-time bias and over-diagnosis.

resultsNet survival varied by screening history. No significant differences in survival were found by ethnicity. Five-year net survival was 90.0% (95% CI, 89.3-90.8%) in less deprived groups and 86.7% (85.9-87.4%) among middle/more deprived women. Screening benefitted all ethnic and both deprivation groups. Whether screen-detected or not, more deprived women had significantly poorer outcomes: 5-year net survival was 78.0% (76.7-79.2%) for deprived women who were not screen-detected compared with 94.0% (93.1-95.1%) for less deprived women who were screen-detected.

conclusionsThe three ethnic groups differed little in their breast cancer survival. Although screening confers a survival benefit to all, there are still wide disparities in survival by deprivation. More needs to be done to determine what underlies these differences and tackle them.

Indexed as

Psychosocial DeprivationAgedBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEthnicityFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMammographyMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationSocioeconomic FactorsSurvival AnalysisUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID26079301
PMCPMC4522622

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.