ArticleThe American economic review2020
Screening and Selection: The Case of Mammograms.
Article in The American economic review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why are the youngest in class more often prescribed pharmacological treatment for ADHD?Journal of population economics · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic and Geographic Differences in Mammography Trends Following the 2009 USPSTF Policy Update.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Lung Cancer Screening and USPSTF Recommendations.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- What Can Economics Say about Alzheimer's Disease?Journal of economic literature · 2023Article
- Behaviour within a Clinical Trial and Implications for Mammography Guidelines.The Review of economic studies · 2023Article
- Health Economics Research in Cancer Screening: Research Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2022Review
- Effects of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program.Health economics · 2021Article
- Understanding Regional Variation in the Cost of Breast Cancer Screening Among Privately Insured Women in the United States.Medical care · 2021Article
- Mammograms and Mortality: How Has the Evidence Evolved?The journal of economic perspectives : a journal of the American Economic Association · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We analyze selection into screening in the context of recommendations that breast cancer screening start at age 40. Combining medical claims with a clinical oncology model, we document that compliers with the recommendation are less likely to have cancer than younger women who select into screening or women who never screen. We show this selection is quantitatively important: shifting the recommendation from age 40 to 45 results in three times as many deaths if compliers were randomly selected than under the estimated patterns of selection. The results highlight the importance of considering characteristics of compliers when making and designing recommendations.
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.