ArticleThe British journal of radiology2019
Breast cancer screening in average-risk women: towards personalized screening.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: Could it be used as a screening test?Saudi medical journal · 2024Article
- The current status of risk-stratified breast screening.British journal of cancer · 2022Review
- Genetic Counseling, Screening and Risk-Reducing Surgery in Patients with Primary Breast Cancer and Germline BRCA Mutations: Unmet Needs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.European journal of breast health · 2022Article
- Article
- The Effect of Automated Mammogram Orders Paired With Electronic Invitations to Self-schedule on Mammogram Scheduling Outcomes: Observational Cohort Comparison.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Mammographic Variation Measures, Breast Density, and Breast Cancer Risk.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2021Article
- Self-reported symptoms among participants in a population-based screening program.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Article
- Trends in cancer incidence and mortality rates in the United States from 1975 to 2016.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Breast cancer screening is widely recognized for reducing breast cancer mortality. The objective in screening is to diagnose asymptomatic early stage disease, thereby improving treatment efficacy. Screening recommendations have been widely debated over the past years and controversies remain regarding the optimal screening frequency, age to start screening, and age to end screening. While there are no new trials, follow-up information of randomized controlled trials has become available. The American College of Physicians recently issued a new guidance statement on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women, with similar recommendations to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and to European guidelines. However, these guidelines differ from those ofother American specialty societies. The variations reflect differences in the organizations' values, the metrics used to evaluate screening results, and the differences in healthcare organization (individualized or state-organized healthcare). False-positive rates and overdiagnosis of biologically insignificant cancer are perceived as the most important potential harms associated with mammographic screening; however, there is limited evidence on their actual consequences. Most specialty societies agree that physicians should offer mammographic screening at age 40 years for average-risk women and discuss its benefits and potential harms to achieve a personalized screening strategy through a shared decision-making process.
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.