Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31330046›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cancer2020

Effect of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality: Quasi-experimental evidence from rollout of the Dutch population-based program with 17-year follow-up of a cohort.

Tom Van Ourti, Owen O'Donnell, Hale Koç, Jacques Fracheboud, Harry J de Koning

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Quality of life of women with a screen-detected versus clinically detected breast cancer in the Netherlands: a prospective cohort study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. How to create PICO questions about diagnostic tests.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2021
    Article
  13. Thinking globally about cancer research on World Cancer Day.The Indian journal of medical research · 2020
    Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tom Van OurtiErasmus School of Economics, Tinbergen Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Owen O'DonnellErasmus School of Economics, Tinbergen Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hale KoçTinbergen Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacques FracheboudDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4682-3646
Tinbergen Institute · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

Comparative Modeling: Informing Breast Cancer Control Practice and PolicyU01CA199218 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI BERRY, DONALD A, DE KONING, HARRY J · 2015 to 2019
$9.0M
From understanding to reducing health disparities: a model-based evaluationR01AG037398 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI GALAMA, TITUS JOHANNES · 2010 to 2014
$2.2M
National Cancer Institute (NIH) 1U01CA199218-5National Institute on Aging/NIH R01AG037398
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is uncertainty about the magnitude of the effect of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality. The relevance and validity of evidence from dated randomized controlled trials has been questioned, whereas observational studies often lack a valid comparison group. There is no estimate of the effect of one screening invitation only. We exploited the geographic rollout of the Dutch screening mammography program across municipalities to estimate the effects of one additional biennial screening invitation on breast cancer and all-cause mortality. Population administrative data provided vital status and cause of death of a cohort of women aged 49-63 in 1995 over 17 years. Linear probability models were used to estimate the mortality effects. We estimated 154 fewer breast cancer deaths (95% confidence interval: 40-267; p = 0.01) over 17 years in a population of 100,000 women aged 49-63 who received one additional biennial screening invitation, which corresponds to an 9.6% risk reduction for a woman of age 56. The estimated effect on all-cause mortality was negative but not close to statistical significance. Our study shows that one single invitation for breast cancer screening is effective in reducing breast cancer mortality, which is important for health policy. The effect is smaller than previous estimates of the effect of invitation for multiple screens, which further emphasizes the importance of achieving regular participation.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMammographyMiddle AgedNetherlandsPatient Acceptance of Health CareReproducibility of Resultsbreast cancer mortalitymammography screeningpopulation administrative dataquasi-experimental exposure

Identifiers

PMID31330046
PMCPMC7065105
OpenAlexW2964099605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.