Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35197002›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2022

Breast cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and ethical appraisal.

Yehoda M Martei, Bege Dauda, Verna Vanderpuye

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. National policies for screening and early detection of breast cancer around the globe: Practices, barriers, and solutions.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yehoda M MarteiDepartment of Medicine (Division of Hematology-Oncology), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. yehoda.martei@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Bege DaudaCenter for Global Genomics and Health Equity, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Verna VanderpuyeNational Center for Radiotherapy Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital, Accra, Ghana.
University of Pennsylvania · USKorle Bu Teaching Hospital · GH

Funding

Virus & Reservoirs CoreP30AI045008 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI DAVID S METZGER · 1999 to 2026
$78.6M
Fidelity and adaptation of breast cancer resource-stratified treatment guidelines in BotswanaK01TW011481 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MARTEI, YEHODA MARTEKI · 2020 to 2023
$548k
FIC NIH HHS K01 TW011481FIC NIH HHS K01TW011481NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI045008NIH HHS P30 AI 045008 NIH; Penn Center for AIDS Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence and clinical outcomes of screening interventions and implementation trials in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and also appraise some ethical issues related to screening in the region through quantitative and qualitative narrative synthesis of the literature.

methodsWe searched Pubmed, OvidMEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science to identify studies published on breast cancer screening interventions and outcomes in SSA. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the frequency and proportions of extracted variables, and narrative syntheses was used to evaluate the clinical outcomes of the different screening modalities. The mixed methods appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of studies included in the review.

resultsFifteen studies were included, which consisted of 72,572 women in ten countries in SSA. 63% (8/15) of the included publications evaluated Clinical Breast Examination (CBE), 47% (7/15) evaluated mammography and 7% (1/15) evaluated ultrasound screening. The cancer detection rate was < 1/1000 to 3.3/1000 and 3.3/100 to 56/1000 for CBE and mammography screening respectively. There was a lot of heterogeneity in CBE methods, target age for screening and no clear documentation of screening interval. Cost-effective analyses showed that CBE screening linked to comprehensive cancer care is most cost effective. There was limited discussion of the ethics of screening, including the possible harms of screening in the absence of linkage to care. The gap between conducting good screening program and the appropriate follow-up with diagnosis and treatment remains one of the major challenges of screening in SSA. DISCUSSION: There is insufficient real-world data to support the systematic implementation of national breast cancer screening in SSA. Further research is needed to answer important questions about screening, and national and international partnerships are needed to ensure that appropriate diagnostic and treatment modalities are available to patients who screen positive.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalAdolescentAdultAfrica South of the SaharaBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Plan ImplementationHumansMammographyMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareQualitative ResearchYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID35197002
PMCPMC8867875
OpenAlexW4212985211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.