Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29910654›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2018

Screening for breast cancer in 2018-what should we be doing today?

J M Seely, T Alhassan

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

99 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

J M SeelyDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON.
T AlhassanDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although screening mammography has delivered many benefits since its introduction in Canada in 1988, questions about perceived harms warrant an up-to-date review. To help oncologists and physicians provide optimal patient recommendations, the literature was reviewed to find the latest guidelines for screening mammography, including benefits and perceived harms of overdiagnosis, false positives, false negatives, and technologic advances. For women 40-74 years of age who actually participate in screening every 1-2 years, breast cancer mortality is reduced by 40%. With appropriate corrections, overdiagnosis accounts for 10% or fewer breast cancers. False positives occur in about 10% of screened women, 80% of which are resolved with additional imaging, and 10%, with breast biopsy. An important limitation of screening is the false negatives (15%-20%). The technologic advances of digital breast tomosynthesis, breast ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging counter the false negatives of screening mammography, particularly in women with dense breast tissue.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerBiopsyBreast NeoplasmsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHistory, 21st CenturyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyMass ScreeningMedical OncologyUltrasonography, MammaryBreast cancerdigital breast tomosynthesisoverdiagnosisscreening mammography

Identifiers

PMID29910654
PMCPMC6001765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.