ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2018
Disaggregating the mortality reductions due to cancer screening: model-based estimates from population-based data.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2018. 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.
- Provincial Variation in Adherence to Breast Cancer Screening in Canada: Evidence From the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow's Health.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Instrumental variable estimation of early treatment effect in randomized screening trials.Lifetime data analysis · 2021Article
- Article
- Inter- and intra-provincial variation in screen-detected breast cancer across five Canadian provinces: a CanIMPACT study.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2020Article
- Objectives, design and main findings until 2020 from the Rotterdam Study.European journal of epidemiology · 2020Article
- Statistical analysis and decision making in cancer screening.European journal of epidemiology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mortality impact in cancer screening trials and population programs is usually expressed as a single hazard ratio or percentage reduction. This measure ignores the number/spacing of rounds of screening, and the location in follow-up time of the averted deaths vis-a-vis the first and last screens. If screening works as intended, hazard ratios are a strong function of the two Lexis time-dimensions. We show how the number and timing of the rounds of screening can be included in a model that specifies what each round of screening accomplishes. We show how this model can be used to disaggregate the observed reductions (i.e., make them time-and screening-history specific), and to project the impact of other regimens. We use data on breast cancer screening to illustrate this model, which we had already described in technical terms in a statistical journal. Using the numbers of invitations different cohorts received, we fitted the model to the age- and follow-up-year-specific numbers of breast cancer deaths in Funen, Denmark. From November 1993 onwards, women aged 50-69 in Funen were invited to mammography screening every two years, while those in comparison regions were not. Under the proportional hazards model, the overall fitted hazard ratio was 0.82 (average reduction 18%). Using a (non-proportional-hazards) model that included the timing information, the fitted reductions ranged from 0 to 30%, being largest in those Lexis cells that had received the greatest number of invitations and where sufficient time had elapsed for the impacts to manifest. The reductions produced by cancer screening have been underestimated by inattention to their timing. By including the determinants of the hazard ratios in a regression-type model, the proposed approach provides a way to disaggregate the mortality reductions and project the reductions produced by other regimes/durations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29209939What 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.