Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26831305›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2016

Benefits and Harms of Screening Mammography by Comorbidity and Age: A Qualitative Synthesis of Observational Studies and Decision Analyses.

Dejana Braithwaite, Louise C Walter, Monika Izano, Karla Kerlikowske

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Function-related Indicators and Outcomes of Screening Mammography in Older Women: Evidence from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Dejana BraithwaiteDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. DBraithwaite@epi.ucsf.edu.
Louise C WalterDivision of Geriatrics, San Francisco VA Medical Center and the University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Monika IzanoDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Karla KerlikowskeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

Midcareer Mentoring Award for Patient-Oriented Research in AgingK24AG041180 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI WALTER, LOUISE C. · 2011 to 2016
$909k
NIA NIH HHS K24 AG041180
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe conducted a systematic review to assess the quality and limitations of published studies examining benefits and harms of screening mammography in relation to comorbidity and age.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1980 through June 2013 for studies that examined benefits or harms of screening mammography in women aged 65 years or older in relation to comorbidity. For each study, we extracted data regarding setting, design, quality, screening schedule, measure of comorbidity, and estimates of benefits and/or harms. We reviewed 1760 titles, identifying 7 articles that met the inclusion criteria: prospective cohort (two studies), retrospective cohort (two studies), and decision analyses (three studies). No randomized controlled trials were identified.

resultsAt least one measure of life expectancy or reduction in the risk of breast cancer death as a marker of benefit was examined in four studies, whereas three studies addressed the harms of screening mammography, including false-positive results. Both cohort studies and decision analyses showed that screening benefits decreased with increasing age and comorbidity burden.

conclusionsThe limited evidence currently available suggests that, apart from older women with severe comorbidity, women 65 and older may experience improvements in life expectancy from screening. Given the potential for harm, it is unclear whether the magnitude of the benefit is sufficient to warrant regular screening. Women, clinicians and policymakers should consider these factors in deciding whether continue screening.

Indexed as

MammographyAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsComorbidityCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision Support TechniquesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningObservational Studies as Topicagingbreast cancer screeningcomorbidity

Identifiers

PMID26831305
PMCPMC4835373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.