SynthesisInternational journal of cancer2019
Systematic reviews as a 'lens of evidence': Determinants of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.
Synthesis in International journal of cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Online Interactive Decision Tools on Women's Decision-Making Regarding Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of public health interventions to address breast cancer inequalities in low- and middle-income countries.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer Surveillance AmongFrontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Effectiveness of clinical breast examination as a 'stand-alone' screening modality: an overview of systematic reviews.BMC cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic reviews as a "lens of evidence": Determinants of cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening.Cancer medicine · 2019Pooled it
- A health belief model-based community health education on mammography screening among reproductive-aged women in Ethiopia: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in public health · 2024Trial
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of mammography screening for early detection of breast cancer in Nigeria.PloS one · 2026Article
- Incorporating Continuous Mammographic Density Into the BOADICEA Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Breast Cancer Screening Using Clinical Breast Examination: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for South Africa.Value in health regional issues · 2025Article
- Article
- Cost-benefit analysis of mammography screening: the perspective of Nigerian healthcare providers.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Enhanced radio-photodynamic therapy potential of advanced gold-based nanoclusters for breast cancer treatment.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Article
- Clinical outcomes of screening and diagnostic mammography in a limited resource healthcare system.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Integrating a Polygenic Risk Score into a clinical setting would impact risk predictions in familial breast cancer.Journal of medical genetics · 2024Article
- Breast cancer: Epidemiology, risk factors and screening.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of screening for oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD): A systematic review.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Prospective validation of the BOADICEA multifactorial breast cancer risk prediction model in a large prospective cohort study.Journal of medical genetics · 2022Article
- Does Pink October really impact breast cancer screening?Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Primary breast cancer biomarkers based on glycosylation and extracellular vesicles detected from human serum.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2022Article
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 at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review, stimulated by inconsistency in secondary evidence, reports the benefits and harms of breast cancer (BC) screening and their determinants according to systematic reviews. A systematic search, which identified 9,976 abstracts, led to the inclusion of 58 reviews. BC mortality reduction with screening mammography was 15-25% in trials and 28-56% in observational studies in all age groups, and the risk of stage III+ cancers was reduced for women older than 49 years. Overdiagnosis due to mammography was 1-60% in trials and 1-12% in studies with a low risk of bias, and cumulative false-positive rates were lower with biennial than annual screening (3-17% vs 0.01-41%). There is no consistency in the reviews' conclusions about the magnitude of BC mortality reduction among women younger than 50 years or older than 69 years, or determinants of benefits and harms of mammography, including the type of mammography (digital vs screen-film), the number of views and the screening interval. Similarly, there was no solid evidence on determinants of benefits and harms or BC mortality reduction with screening by ultrasonography or clinical breast examination (sensitivity ranges, 54-84% and 47-69%, respectively), and strong evidence of unfavourable benefit-to-harm ratio with breast self-examination. The reviews' conclusions were not dependent on the quality of the reviews or publication date. Systematic reviews on mammography screening, mainly from high-income countries, systematically disagree on the interpretation of the benefit-to-harm ratio. Future reviews are unlikely to clarify the discrepancies unless new original studies are published.
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.