Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32211885›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2020

Negative controls to detect uncontrolled confounding in observational studies of mammographic screening comparing participants and non-participants.

Mette Lise Lousdal, Timothy L Lash, W Dana Flanders, M Alan Brookhart, Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen, Mette Kalager, Henrik Støvring

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Wildfire smoke PMScience advances · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Mette Lise LousdalDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Timothy L LashDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
W Dana FlandersDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
M Alan BrookhartDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Ivar Sønbø KristiansenDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, Oslo University, Oslo, Norway.
Mette KalagerDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, Oslo University, Oslo, Norway.
Henrik StøvringDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKEmory University · USDuke University · USOslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen comparing mammography-screening participants and non-participants, estimates of reduction in breast-cancer mortality may be biased by poor baseline comparability. We used negative controls to detect uncontrolled confounding.

methodsWe designed a closed cohort of Danish women invited to a mammography-screening programme at age 50-52 years in Copenhagen or Funen from 1991 through 2001. We included women with a normal screening result in their first-invitation round. Based on their second-invitation round, women were divided into participants and non-participants and followed until death, emigration or 31 December 2014, whichever came first. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of death from breast cancer, causes other than breast cancer and external causes. We added dental-care participation as an exposure to test for an independent association with breast-cancer mortality. We adjusted for civil status, parity, age at first birth, educational attainment, income and hormone use.

resultsScreening participants had a lower hazard of breast-cancer death [HR 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32, 0.69] compared with non-participants. Participants also had a lower hazard of death from other causes (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.39, 0.46) and external causes (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.23, 0.54). Reductions persisted after covariate adjustment. Dental-care participants had a lower hazard of breast-cancer death (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56, 1.01), irrespective of screening participation.

conclusionsNegative-control associations indicated residual uncontrolled confounding when comparing breast-cancer mortality among screening participants and non-participants.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyObservational Studies as TopicCohort StudiesConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicDenmarkFemaleHumansMiddle AgedResearch DesignBreast cancermammography screeningnegative controlsuncontrolled confounding

Identifiers

PMID32211885
PMCPMC7394947
OpenAlexW3013907381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.