ArticlePloS one2016
Information on 'Overdiagnosis' in Breast Cancer Screening on Prominent United Kingdom- and Australia-Oriented Health Websites.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Increased Breast and Colorectal Cancer Risk in Type 2 Diabetes: Awareness Among Adults With and Without Diabetes and Information Provision on Diabetes Websites.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Analysing the ethics of breast cancer overdiagnosis: a pathogenic vulnerability.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Article
- Online information about risks and benefits of screening mammography in 10 European countries: An observational Web sites analysis.Medicine · 2018Observational
- Women's Awareness of and Responses to Messages About Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment: Results From a 2016 National Survey.Medical care · 2017Article
- The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate.NPJ breast cancer · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesHealth-related websites are an important source of information for the public. Increasing public awareness of overdiagnosis and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in breast cancer screening may facilitate more informed decision-making. This study assessed the extent to which such information was included on prominent health websites oriented towards the general public, and evaluated how it was explained.
designCross-sectional study.
settingWebsites identified through Google searches in England (United Kingdom) and New South Wales (Australia) for "breast cancer screening" and further websites included based on our prior knowledge of relevant organisations. MAIN OUTCOMES: Content analysis was used to determine whether information on overdiagnosis or DCIS existed on each site, how the concepts were described, and what statistics were used to quantify overdiagnosis.
resultsAfter exclusions, ten UK websites and eight Australian websites were considered relevant and evaluated. They originated from charities, health service providers, government agencies, and an independent health organisation. Most contained some information on overdiagnosis (and/or DCIS). Descriptive information was similar across websites. Among UK websites, statistical information was often based on estimates from the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening; the most commonly provided statistic was the ratio of breast cancer deaths prevented to overdiagnosed cases (1:3). A range of other statistics was included, such as the yearly number of overdiagnosed cases and the proportion of women screened who would be overdiagnosed. Information on DCIS and statistical information was less common on the Australian websites.
conclusionsOnline information about overdiagnosis has become more widely available in 2015-16 compared with the limited accessibility indicated by older research. However, there may be scope to offer more information on DCIS and overdiagnosis statistics on Australian websites. Moreover, the variability in how estimates are presented across UK websites may be confusing for the general public.
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.