ReviewBMJ open2021
Estimations of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening vary between 0% and over 50%: why?
Review in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Supplemental Screening as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in People With Dense Breasts: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2023Pooled it
- Long-term effectiveness and overdiagnosis in the NHS breast screening programme: a cohort study with up to 33 years of follow-up.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- A guide to cancer screening.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Survival Benefits and Less Intensive Treatment for Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer Diagnosed While Participating in Population-Based Screening.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Challenges and Innovations in Breast Cancer Screening in India: A Review of Epidemiological Trends and Diagnostic Strategies.International journal of breast cancer · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Another piece in the overdiagnosis jigsaw puzzle.BMJ oncology · 2023Article
- Cancer overdiagnosis: a challenge in the era of screening.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPublished estimations of the extent of breast cancer overdiagnosis vary widely, and there have been heated debates around these estimations. Some high estimates have even been the basis of campaigns against national breast cancer screening programmes. Identifying some of the sources of heterogeneity between different estimates would help to clarify the issue.
methodsThe simple case of neuroblastoma-a childhood cancer-screening is used to describe the basic principle of overdiagnosis estimation. The more complicated mechanism of breast cancer overdiagnosis is described based on data from Denmark, taking into account the type of data used, individual or aggregated.
findingsThe type of data used in overdiagnosis studies has a meaningful effect on the estimation: no study based on individual data provides an estimate higher than 17%, while studies based on aggregated data often provide estimates higher than 40%. This is too systematic to be random. The analysis of two Danish studies, one of each kind, highlights the biases that come with the use of aggregated data and shows how they can lead to overdiagnosis.
interpretationMany estimates of overdiagnosis associated with breast cancer screening programmes are serious overestimations.
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.