Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38263823›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024

Development and quality appraisal of a new English breast screening linked data set as part of the age, test threshold, and frequency of mammography screening (ATHENA-M) study.

Julia Brettschneider, Breanna Morrison, David Jenkinson, Karoline Freeman, Jackie Walton, Alice Sitch, Sue Hudson, Olive Kearins, Alice Mansbridge, Sarah E Pinder and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

15 authors.

Julia BrettschneiderDepartment of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.
Breanna MorrisonUniversity of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom.
David JenkinsonWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.
Karoline FreemanWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.
Jackie WaltonScreening Quality Assurance Service, NHS England, Birmingham, B2 4BH, United Kingdom.
Alice SitchUniversity of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7727-4497
Sue HudsonPeel & Schriek Consulting Ltd, London, NW3 4QG, United Kingdom.
Olive KearinsScreening Quality Assurance Service, NHS England, Birmingham, B2 4BH, United Kingdom.
Alice MansbridgeWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.
Sarah E PinderSchool of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom.
Rosalind Given-WilsonSt George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, SW17 0QT, United Kingdom.
Louise WilkinsonOxford Breast Imaging Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, OX3 7LE, United Kingdom.
Matthew G WallisCambridge Breast Unit and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom.
Shan CheungScreening Quality Assurance Service, NHS England, Birmingham, B2 4BH, United Kingdom.
Sian Taylor-PhillipsWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1841-4346

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo build a data set capturing the whole breast cancer screening journey from individual breast cancer screening records to outcomes and assess data quality.

methodsRoutine screening records (invitation, attendance, test results) from all 79 English NHS breast screening centres between January 1, 1988 and March 31, 2018 were linked to cancer registry (cancer characteristics and treatment) and national mortality data. Data quality was assessed using comparability, validity, timeliness, and completeness.

resultsScreening records were extracted from 76/79 English breast screening centres, 3/79 were not possible due to software issues. Data linkage was successful from 1997 after introduction of a universal identifier for women (NHS number). Prior to 1997 outcome data are incomplete due to linkage issues, reducing validity. Between January 1, 1997 and March 31, 2018, a total of 11 262 730 women were offered screening of whom 9 371 973 attended at least one appointment, with 139 million person-years of follow-up (a median of 12.4 person years for each woman included) with 73 810 breast cancer deaths and 1 111 139 any-cause deaths. Comparability to reference data sets and internal validity were demonstrated. Data completeness was high for core screening variables (>99%) and main cancer outcomes (>95%).

conclusionsThe ATHENA-M project has created a large high-quality and representative data set of individual women's screening trajectories and outcomes in England from 1997 to 2018, data before 1997 are lower quality. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the most complete data set of English breast screening records and outcomes constructed to date, which can be used to evaluate and optimize screening.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsSemantic WebBreastFemaleHumansMammographyState Medicinebreast neoplasmdata accuracymammographyroutinely collected health data

Identifiers

PMID38263823
PMCPMC11027252

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.