ArticlePeerJ2018
Comparison of pathological characteristics between self-detected and screen-detected invasive breast cancers in Chinese women: a retrospective study.
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn China, there is insufficient evidence to support that screening programs can detect breast cancer earlier and improve outcomes compared with patient self-reporting. Therefore, we compared the pathological characteristics at diagnosis between self-detected and screen-detected cases of invasive breast cancer at our institution and determined whether these characteristics were different after the program's introduction (vs. prior to).
methodsThree databases were selected (breast cancer diagnosed in 1995-2000, 2010, and 2015), which provided a total of 3,014 female patients with invasive breast cancer. The cases were divided into self-detected and screen-detected groups. The pathological characteristics were compared between the two groups and multiple imputation and complete randomized imputation were used to deal with missing data.
resultsCompared with patient self-reporting, screening was associated with the following factors: a higher percentage of stage T1 tumors (75.0% vs 17.1%,
conclusionScreen-detected breast cancer was associated with a greater number of favorable pathological characteristics. However, although screening had a beneficial role in early detection in China, we found fewer patients were detected by screening in this study compared with those in Western and Asian developed countries.
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.