Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32058543›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2020

The Value of All-Cause Mortality as a Metric for Assessing Breast Cancer Screening.

Martin J Yaffe, James G Mainprize

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Deceptive Measures of "Success" in Early Cancer Detection.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024
    Review
  6. Overdetection of Breast Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

2 authors.

Martin J YaffePhysical Sciences Platform, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
James G MainprizePhysical Sciences Platform, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although screening mammography has been demonstrated to contribute to reducing mortality due to breast cancer, some have suggested that reduced all-cause mortality should constitute the burden of proof for effectiveness. Using a microsimulation model of the development, detection, and treatment of breast cancer, it is straightforward to demonstrate that this is an unrealistic expectation for trials of practical size and period of observation, even where the reduction of breast cancer mortality is substantial. Estimates of all-cause mortality will depend not only on the efficacy of the screening intervention but also on the alignment between the age distribution of the effect of screening on reduction of deaths and that of the other major causes of death. The size of a randomized trial required to demonstrate a reduction in all-cause mortality will, therefore, depend on the length and timing of the observation period and will typically be at least 10 times larger than the size of a trial powered to test for a reduction in deaths due to breast cancer. For breast cancer, which represents a small fraction of overall deaths, all-cause mortality is neither a practical nor informative metric for assessing the effectiveness of screening.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesComputer SimulationEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID32058543
PMCPMC7566389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.