Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35851849›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2023

A case-control study to evaluate the impact of the breast screening programme on breast cancer incidence in England.

Oleg Blyuss, Amanda Dibden, Nathalie J Massat, Dharmishta Parmar, Jack Cuzick, Stephen W Duffy, Peter Sasieni

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A guide to cancer screening.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Oleg BlyussCentre for Prevention, Detection, and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Amanda DibdenCentre for Prevention, Detection, and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Nathalie J MassatCentre for Prevention, Detection, and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Dharmishta ParmarCentre for Prevention, Detection, and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8767-8364
Jack CuzickCentre for Prevention, Detection, and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7420-7512
Stephen W DuffyCentre for Prevention, Detection, and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Peter SasieniSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is uncertainty about overdiagnosis in mammography screening.

methodsWe aimed to estimate the effect of screening on breast cancer incidence and overdiagnosis in the NHS Breast Screening Programme in England. The study included 57,493 cases and 105,653 controls, with cases defined as women diagnosed at ages 47-89 with primary breast cancer, invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ, in 2010 or 2011. Where possible, two controls were selected per case, matched on date of birth and screening area. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of screening on breast cancer risk, with adjustment for potential self-selection bias. Results were combined with national incidence data to estimate absolute rates of overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis was calculated as the cumulative excess of cancers diagnosed in the age group 50-77 in a woman attending three-yearly screening between ages 50 and 70 compared with a woman attending no screens.

resultsThe estimated number of cases overdiagnosed in women attending all screens in the programme was 679.3 per 100,000 without adjustment for self-selection bias and 261.2 per 100,000 with adjustment. These corresponded to an estimated 9.5% of screen-detected cancers overdiagnosed without adjustment and 3.7% with adjustment for self-selection.

conclusionsThe NHS Breast Screening Programme in England confers at worst modest levels of overdiagnosis.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overCase-Control StudiesEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleHumansIncidenceMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle Agedbreast cancercancer preventionscreeningwomen's cancer

Identifiers

PMID35851849
PMCPMC9883434
OpenAlexW4285801072

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.