ReviewAcademic radiology2015
Screening mammography: update and review of publications since our report in the New England Journal of Medicine on the magnitude of the problem in the United States.
Review in Academic radiology, 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast Cancer Screening in Women With Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2020Pooled it
- Mammography screening and mortality by risk status in the California teachers study.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- How Do Women View Risk-Based Mammography Screening? A Qualitative Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Article
- Controversies on Mammography Screening in the World and Bahceşehir Population-Based Organized Mammography Screening Project in Turkey.The journal of breast health · 2015Article
- Implications of Overdiagnosis: Impact on Screening Mammography Practices.Population health management · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesAfter a half century of clinical trials, expansive observations, vigorous advocacy and debate, screening mammography could not be in a more controversial condition, especially the potential harm of overdiagnosis. Despite a simple rationale (catch the cancer early and either prevent death or at least decrease the amount of therapy needed for cure), the estimates to date of overdiagnosis rates are conflicting and the interpretations complex. MATERIALS AND
methodsSince the author's 2012 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the peer-reviewed publications on overdiagnosis caused by screening mammography are reviewed and the NEJM analyses updated with three additional calendar years of results.
resultsThe recent peer-reviewed medical literature on screening mammography induced overdiagnosis of breast cancer has increased exponentially, nearly 10-fold in 10 years. The average estimate of overdiagnosis is about 30%, but the range extends from 0% to 70+%. An update of the NEJM report estimates that in the US, 78,000 women and 30%-31% of those diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 40 years or older during 2011 were overdiagnosed.
conclusionsUntil we have better screening procedures that identify who really has cancer and needs to be treated, the risk of overdiagnosis relative to the benefit of screening merits more effective public and professional education. Radiologists, pathologists, and other professionals involved with screening mammography should recognize that the potential harm of overdiagnosis is downplayed or not discussed with the patient and family, despite agreement that the objective is informed choice.
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.