ArticleBritish journal of cancer2016
Effect of organised mammography screening on stage-specific incidence in Norway: population study.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Personalized screening based on risk and density: prevalence data from the RIBBS study.La Radiologia medica · 2025Observational
- A comparison of breast cancer incidence and cancer stages before and after the introduction of the Austrian national breast cancer screening program in the federal state of Salzburg : Real-world data from the Tumor Registry Salzburg.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2025Article
- The risk-based breast screening (RIBBS) study protocol: a personalized screening model for young women.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Assessment of Breast Cancer Mortality Trends Associated With Mammographic Screening and Adjuvant Therapy From 1986 to 2013 in the State of Victoria, Australia.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- The impact of mammography screening programmes on incidence of advanced breast cancer in Europe: a literature review.BMC cancer · 2018Review
- The impacts of public mammography screening on the relationship between socioeconomic status and cancer stage.SSM - population health · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to estimate the effect of organised mammography screening on breast cancer stage distribution by comparing changes in women eligible for screening, based on birth cohort, to the concurrent changes in younger, ineligible women.
methodsIn an open cohort study in Norway, which introduced national mammography screening county-by-county from 1995 to 2004, we identified women (n=49 883) diagnosed with in situ or invasive breast cancer (ICD10 codes: D05 or C50) during the period 1987-2011 and born between 1917 and 1980. We estimated relative incidence rate ratios (rIRRs) comparing the development in the screening vs historic group to the younger vs younger historic group.
resultsIncluding the compensatory drop, eligible women experienced a 68% higher increase in localised cancers (rIRR=1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.51-1.87) than younger women, while the increase in incidence of advanced cancers was similar (rIRR=1.11, 95% CI: 0.90-1.36). Excluding the prevalence round, eligible women experienced a 60% higher increase in localised cancers (rIRR=1.60, 95% CI: 1.42-1.79), while the increase in incidence of advanced cancers remained similar (rIRR=1.08, 95% CI: 0.86-1.35).
conclusionsIntroduction of organised mammography screening was followed by a significant increase in localised and no change in advanced-stage cancers in women eligible for screening relative to younger, ineligible women.
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.