Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26459293›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2015

Evaluation of health benefits and harms of the breast cancer screening programme in the Basque Country using discrete event simulation.

Arantzazu Arrospide, Montserrat Rue, Nicolien T van Ravesteyn, Merce Comas, Nerea Larrañaga, Garbiñe Sarriugarte, Javier Mar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Arantzazu ArrospideGipuzkoa AP-OSI Research Unit, Integrated Health Organization Alto Deba, Avda Navarra 16, 20500, Arrasate-Mondragón, Gipuzkoa, Spain. arantzazu.arrospideelgarresta@osakidetza.net.
Montserrat RueREDISSEC (Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas - Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network), Bilbao, Spain. montse.rue@cmb.udl.cat.
Nicolien T van RavesteynDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr Molewaterplein 50, 3015 GE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. n.vanravesteyn@erasmusmc.nl.
Merce ComasREDISSEC (Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas - Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network), Bilbao, Spain. MComas@imas.imim.es.
Nerea LarrañagaPublic Health Division of Gipuzkoa, BIODONOSTIA Research Institute, Paseo Dr Beguiristain s/n, 20014, Donostia, Gipuzkoa, Spain. epidem3-san@ej-gv.es.
Garbiñe SarriugarteBreast Cancer Early Detection Programme, Public Health Division of Bizkaia, Basque Government, Alameda Rekalde 39, 48008, Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain. garbine.sarriugarteirigoien@osakidetza.net.
Javier MarGipuzkoa AP-OSI Research Unit, Integrated Health Organization Alto Deba, Avda Navarra 16, 20500, Arrasate-Mondragón, Gipuzkoa, Spain. javier.marmedina@osakidetza.net.
Spanish Clinical Research Network · ESBasque Government · ESBiogipuzkoa Health Research Institute · ESErasmus MC · NLHospital Alto Deba · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince the breast cancer screening programme in the Basque Country (BCSPBC) was started in 1996, more than 400,000 women aged 50 to 69 years have been invited to participate. Based on epidemiological observations and simulation techniques it is possible to extend observed short term data into anticipated long term results. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the programme through 2011 by quantifying the outcomes in breast cancer mortality, life-years gained, false positive results, and overdiagnosis.

methodsA discrete event simulation model was constructed to reproduce the natural history of breast cancer (disease-free, pre-clinical, symptomatic, and disease-specific death) and the actual observed characteristics of the screening programme during the evaluated period in the Basque women population. Goodness-of-fit statistics were applied for model validation. The screening effects were measured as differences in benefits and harms between the screened and unscreened populations. Breast cancer mortality reduction and life-years gained were considered as screening benefits, whereas, overdiagnosis and false positive results were assessed as harms. Results for a single cohort were also obtained.

resultsThe screening programme yielded a 16 % reduction in breast cancer mortality and a 10 % increase in the incidence of breast cancer through 2011. Almost 2 % of all the women in the programme had a false positive result during the evaluation period. When a single cohort was analysed, the number of deaths decreased by 13 %, and 4 % of screen-detected cancers were overdiagnosed. Each woman with BC detected by the screening programme gained 2.5 life years due to early detection corrected by lead time.

conclusionsFifteen years after the screening programme started, this study supports an important decrease in breast cancer mortality due to the screening programme, with reasonable risk of overdiagnosis and false positive results, and sustains the continuation of the breast cancer screening programme in the Basque population.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningAgedBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansIncidenceMiddle AgedMortalityRegistriesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID26459293
PMCPMC4603694
OpenAlexW1898051931

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.