Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening: A Density Conundrum.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. An analysis of screen-detected invasive cancers by grade in the English breast cancer screening programme: are we failing to detect sufficient small grade 3 cancers?European radiology · 2021
   Observational
2. Between-Race Differences in Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Before and After Breast Density Notification Law.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2019
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Breast Density Notification Legislation and Breast Cancer Stage at Diagnosis: Early Evidence from the SEER Registry.2017

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as