ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2020
Self-reported symptoms among participants in a population-based screening program.
Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved stage-specific survival in screen-detected breast cancer in Denmark: a cohort study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Breast cancer awareness and preferences for screening messaging on menstrual hygiene products in Ghana and Tanzania.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Identifying breast cancer risk factors and evaluating biennial mammography screening efficacy using big data analysis in Taiwan.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- "Screening isn't Your Ticket to Vacation": In-depth Interviews With Women in the United States Who Experienced an Interval Breast Cancer.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA limited number of studies have explored the association between self-reported symptoms and the risk of breast cancer among participants of population based screening programs.
methodsWe performed descriptive statistics on recall, screen-detected and interval cancer, positive predictive value and histopathological tumour characteristics by symptom group (asymptomatic, lump, and skin or nipple changes) as reported from 785,642 women aged 50-69 when they attended BreastScreen Norway 1996-2016. Uni- and multivariable mixed effects logistic regression models were used to analyze the association between symptom group and screen-detected or interval cancer. Results were presented as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsA lump or skin/nipple change was reported in 6.2% of the 3,307,697 examinations. The rate of screen-detected cancers per 1000 examinations was 45.2 among women with a self-reported lump and 5.1 among asymptomatic women. Adjusted odds ratio of screen-detected cancer was 10.1 (95% CI: 9.3-11.1) and 2.0 (95% CI: 1.6-2.5) for interval cancer among women with a self-reported lump versus asymptomatic women. Tumour diameter, histologic grade and lymph node involvement of screen-detected and interval cancer were less prognostically favourable for women with a self-reported lump versus asymptomatic women.
conclusionDespite targeting asymptomatic women, 6.2% of the screening examinations in BreastScreen Norway was performed among women who reported a lump or skin/nipple change when they attended screening. The odds ratio of screen-detected cancer was higher for women with versus without symptoms. Standardized follow-up guidelines might be beneficial for screening programs in order to take care of women reporting signs or symptoms of breast cancer when they attend screening.
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.