ArticleMedicine2016
Scarce information about breast cancer screening: An Italian websites analysis.
Article in Medicine, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Educational Videos in Encouraging Preferences for Guideline-Based Cancer Screening in Japan: Three-Arm Pseudorandomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- To Consent or Not to Consent to Screening, That Is the Question.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Online information about mammography screening in Italy from 2014 to 2021.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Online information about risks and benefits of screening mammography in 10 European countries: An observational Web sites analysis.Medicine · 2018Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the public should have complete and correct information about risk/benefit ratio of breast cancer screening, public knowledge appears generally scarce and oriented to overestimate benefits, with little awareness of possible disadvantages of the screening.We evaluated any document specifically addressed to the general female public and posted on internet by Italian public health services. The presence of false positive, false positive after biopsy, false negative, interval cancer, overdiagnosis, lead-time bias, exposure to irradiation, and mortality reduction was analyzed.Of the 255 websites consulted, 136 (53.3%) had sites addressed to the female public. The most commonly reported information points were the false-positive (30.8% of sites) and radiation exposure (29.4%) rates. Only 11 documents mentioned overdiagnosis, 2 mentioned risk of false positive with biopsy, and only 1 mentioned lead-time bias. Moreover, only 15 sites (11.0%) reported quantitative data for any risk variables.Most documents about breast cancer screening published on the web for the female public contained little or no information about risk/benefit ratio and were biased in favor of screening.
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.