ArticleBMC women's health2022
Online information about mammography screening in Italy from 2014 to 2021.
Article in BMC women's health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany studies have reported that the information women receive about the risk-to-benefit ratio of breast cancer screening is still scarce and biased toward benefit. In a study we conducted in 2014, we analysed online documents about breast cancer screening that were addressed to the general female public. In the present study, we used the same methodology to verify if the information provided to women was improved.
methodsWe evaluated documents addressed to the general female public and posted on the Internet by the Italian national and regional public health services. False-positive and false-negative screening results, biopsy-proven false-positive results, interval cancer, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and decrease in risk of mortality were analysed. In addition, quantitative data were searched.
resultsIn 2021, the most frequently reported information was reduction in breast cancer mortality (58.2%). The most frequently reported risk was a false-positive mammogram (42.5%). Similar frequency rates were reported for interval cancer, false-negative result, and radiation exposure (35.8%, 31.3%, and 28.3%, respectively). Overdiagnosis and biopsy-proven false-positive result were the less reported risks (20.1% and 10.4%). Thirteen documents provided quantitative data about reduction of mortality risk (16.7%), and only 19 provided quantitative data about risks or harms (8.4%). Almost all organisations sent letters of invitation to women (92.5%) and provided screening free of charge (92.5%). The most recommended was biennial screening for women aged between 50 and 69 years (48.5%). Compared with the information in 2014, that in 2021 showed some improvements. The most marked improvements were in the numbers of reports on overdiagnosis, which increased from 8.0 to 20.1%, and biopsy-proven false-positive result, which increased from 1.4 to 10.4%. Regarding the benefits of breast cancer screening, reduced mortality risk became increasingly reported from 2014 (34.5%) to 2021 (58.2%). Conversely, quantitative data remained scarce in 2021.
conclusionsModerate improvements in information were observed from 2014 to 2021. However, the information on breast cancer screening in documents intended for women published on Italian websites remain scarce.
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.