Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37162109›Full record

ArticleEpidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil2023

Evaluation of breast cancer screening indicators in the female population using the National Health System, Brazil, 2018-2019: a descriptive study.

Jeane Tomazelli, Maria Beatriz Kneipp Dias, Caroline Madalena Ribeiro, Mônica de Assis, Maria Asunción Sole Pla, Ellyete de Oliveira Canella, Arn Migowski

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Subsequent mammography reduces recall and increases breast cancer detection: an audit of a screening program.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025
    Article
  5. 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.

Jeane TomazelliInstituto Nacional de Câncer, Divisão de Pesquisa Populacional, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2472-3444
Maria Beatriz Kneipp DiasInstituto Nacional de Câncer, Divisão de Detecção Precoce e Apoio à Organização de Rede, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5847-9830
Caroline Madalena RibeiroInstituto Nacional de Câncer, Divisão de Detecção Precoce e Apoio à Organização de Rede, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2690-5791
Mônica de AssisInstituto Nacional de Câncer, Divisão de Detecção Precoce e Apoio à Organização de Rede, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7137-9471
Maria Asunción Sole PlaInstituto Nacional de Câncer, Divisão de Detecção Precoce e Apoio à Organização de Rede, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7862-5615
Ellyete de Oliveira CanellaHospital Quinta D'Or, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0600-9378
Arn MigowskiInstituto Nacional de Câncer, Divisão de Detecção Precoce e Apoio à Organização de Rede, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4861-2319

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objetiveto analyze breast cancer screening monitoring indicators in the female population using the Brazilian National Health System, from 2018 to 2019.

methodsthis was a descriptive study based on Cancer Information System (SISCAN) data; screening indicators were calculated following deterministic linkage of the mammography and histopathology databases.

resultsin 2018, 807,430 women aged 50 to 69 years were screened for breast cancer, 91% of whom had a benign result, 1.8% probably benign, 6.7% inconclusive results and 0.5% results suggestive of cancer; the positive mammogram rate was 9.0%; biopsy was estimated to be indicated for 1.6% of the women, 33.9% of whom had a malignant result, and the cancer confirmation rate was 5.4 per 1,000 women.

conclusionhigh benign lesion loss to follow-up was identified; the positive mammogram rate was lower than the international parameter, but the cancer detection rate was adequate and the percentage of inconclusive mammograms was acceptable.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerBiopsyBrazilFemaleHumansInformation SystemsMammography

Identifiers

PMID37162109
PMCPMC10168689

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.