Observational studyMedicine2018
Online information about risks and benefits of screening mammography in 10 European countries: An observational Web sites analysis.
Observational study in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Association between Malnutrition and Depression in Patients with Cancer: The Importance of Nutritional Status Evaluation in Cancer Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Online information about mammography screening in Italy from 2014 to 2021.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Estimates of Cancer Mortality Attributable to Carcinogenic Infections in Italy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Too much medicine? Scientific and ethical issues from a comparison between two conflicting paradigms.BMC public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most publications about breast cancer do not provide accurate and comprehensive information, giving few or no data about risk/benefit ratios. We conducted a comparative study among 10 European countries about health information on breast cancer screening, assessing the first 10 Web sites addressing the general public that appeared following an Internet search.With the help of medical residents involved in the EuroNet MRPH Association, we analyzed the first 30 results of an Internet search in 10 European countries to determine the first 10 sites that offered screening mammography. We searched for the following information: source of information, general information on mammography and breast cancer screening, potential harms and risks (false positives, false positives after biopsy, false negatives, interval cancer, overdiagnosis, lead-time bias, and radiation exposure), and potential benefits (reduced mortality and increased survival).The United Kingdom provided the most information: 39 of all 70 possible identified risks (56%) were reported on its sites. Five nations presented over 35% of the possible information (United Kingdom, Spain, France, Ireland, and Italy); the others were under 30% (Portugal, Poland, Slovenia, Netherlands, and Croatia). Regarding the benefits, sites offering the most complete information were those in France (95%) and Poland (90%).Our results suggest that, despite consensus in the scientific community about providing better information to citizens, further efforts are needed to improve information about breast cancer screening. That conclusion also applies to countries showing better results. We believe that there should be greater coordination in this regard throughout Europe.
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.