ArticleClinical epidemiology2020
A Validation of Methods for the Evaluation of Observational Studies of Screening Mammography: An Exploratory Analysis Based on Simulating Screening Cohorts.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk-reducing mastectomy and breast cancer mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant: an international analysis.British journal of cancer · 2024Article
- Tamoxifen and the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe degree of confidence one should place on non-randomised observational trials studies which estimate the benefit of screening depends on the validity of the analytic method employed. As is the case for all observational trials, screening evaluation studies are subject to bias. The objective of this study was to create a simulated data set and to compare four analytic methods in order to identify the method which was the least biased in terms of estimating the underlying hazard ratio.
methodsWe simulated a cohort of 100,000 women who were accorded US national rates of breast cancer incidence and breast cancer mortality over their lifetime. We assigned at random one-half of them to initiate mammography screening between ages 50 and 60. We used four different analytic approaches to estimate the hazard ratio under a null model (true HR = 1.0) and under a protective model (true HR = 0.80). Two models used the entire data set (with and without including mammography as a time-dependent covariate) and two models invoked matching of screened women with unscreened women (with and without excluding of women who had a mammogram after study initiation). For each of the four analytic methods, we compared the observed hazard ratio with the true hazard ratio. We considered an analytic method to be valid if the observed hazard ratio was close to the true hazard ratio.
resultsTwo simple analytic methods generated biased results that led to spurious protective effects observed when none was there. The least biased method was based on matching screened and unscreened women and which emulated a randomized trial design, wherein the unexposed control had no mammogram prior to study entry, but she was not excluded or censored if she had a mammogram after the index date.
conclusionThere is no single ideal method to analyze observational data to evaluate the effectiveness of screening mammography (ie, which generates an unbiased estimates of the underlying hazard ratio) but designs which emulate randomised trials should be promoted.
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.