Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28470685›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cancer2017

Benefit-to-harm ratio of the Danish breast cancer screening programme.

Anna-Belle Beau, Elsebeth Lynge, Sisse Helle Njor, Ilse Vejborg, Søren Nymand Lophaven

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anna-Belle BeauDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, DK-1014, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4631-100X
Elsebeth LyngeDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, DK-1014, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sisse Helle NjorDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, University of Aarhus, DK-8200, Aarhus, Denmark.
Ilse VejborgDepartment of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital (Rigshospitalet), DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Søren Nymand LophavenDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, DK-1014, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKAarhus University · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The primary aim of breast cancer screening is to reduce breast cancer mortality, but screening also has negative side-effects as overdiagnosis. To evaluate a screening programme, both benefits and harms should be considered. Published estimates of the benefit-to-harm ratio, the number of breast cancer deaths prevented divided by the number of overdiagnosed breast cancer cases, varied considerably. The objective of the study was to estimate the benefit-to-harm ratio of breast cancer screening in Denmark. The numbers of breast cancer deaths prevented and overdiagnosed cases [invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)] were estimated per 1,000 women aged 50-79, using national published estimates for breast cancer mortality and overdiagnosis, and national incidence and mortality rates. Estimations were made for both invited and screened women. Among 1,000 women invited to screening from age 50 to age 69 and followed until age 79, we estimated that 5.4 breast cancer deaths would be prevented and 2.1 cases overdiagnosed, under the observed scenario in Denmark of a breast cancer mortality reduction of 23.4% and 2.3% of the breast cancer cases being overdiagnosed. The estimated benefit-to-harm ratio was 2.6 for invited women and 2.5 for screened women. Hence, 2-3 women would be prevented from dying from breast cancer for every woman overdiagnosed with invasive breast cancer or DCIS. The difference between the previous published ratios and 2.6 for Denmark is probably more a reflection of the accuracy of the underlying estimates than of the actual screening programmes. Therefore, benefit-to-harm ratios should be used cautiously.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerAgedBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingDenmarkFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceMammographyMedical OveruseMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessPrognosisSurvival Ratebenefit-to-harm ratiobreast cancerbreast cancer death preventedoverdiagnosed casesscreening

Identifiers

PMID28470685
PMCPMC5488203
OpenAlexW2611629875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.