Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38285110›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2024

Comparisons of assessment pathways after abnormal mammography screening in Denmark, Norway, and Spain.

Susanne Fogh Jørgensen, Silje Sagstad, Javier Louro, Marta Román, Xavier Castells, Solveig Hofvind, Sisse Njor

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Susanne Fogh JørgensenUniversity Research Clinic for Cancer Screening, Randers Regional Hospital, Skovlyvej 15, 8930, Randers NE, Denmark. susanne.fogh.jorgensen@rsyd.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4534-0351
Silje SagstadSection for Breast Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Javier LouroDepartment of Epidemiology and Evaluation, IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2985-3301
Marta RománDepartment of Epidemiology and Evaluation, IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9076-8918
Xavier CastellsDepartment of Epidemiology and Evaluation, IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2528-0382
Solveig HofvindSection for Breast Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0178-8939
Sisse NjorUniversity Research Clinic for Cancer Screening, Randers Regional Hospital, Skovlyvej 15, 8930, Randers NE, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0429-4176
Red de Investigación en Actividades Preventivas y Promoción de la Salud · ESCancer Registry of Norway · NOAarhus University · DKLillebaelt Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo ensure high-quality screening programmes and effective utilization of resources, it is important to monitor how cancer detection is affected by different strategies performed at recall assessment. This study aimed to describe procedures performed at recall assessment and compare and evaluate the performance of the assessment in Denmark, Norway, and Spain in terms of screen-detected cancer (SDC) and interval cancer (IC) rates.

methodsWe included women aged 50-69 years from Denmark, Norway, and Spain, who were recalled for assessment after screening mammography, and recorded all procedures performed during six months after diagnosis, and the timing of the procedures. Women were followed for two years and screen-detected and interval cancer, and sensitivity of recall was calculated and compared.

resultsIn total, data from 24,645 Danish, 30,050 Norwegian, and 41,809 Spanish women were included in the study. Most of the women had some assessment within 2 months in all three countries. SDC rates were higher in Denmark (0.57) and Norway (0.60) compared to Spain (0.38), as were the IC rates, i.e. 0.25 and 0.18 vs. 0.12, respectively. The sensitivity of the diagnostic follow-up was somewhat higher in Denmark (98.3%) and Norway (98.2%), compared to Spain (95.4%), but when excluding non-invasive assessment pathways, the sensitivities were comparable.

conclusionThis comparison study showed variation in the assessment procedures used in the three countries as well as the SDC and IC rates and the sensitivity of recall.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyAgedDenmarkFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNorwaySpainBreast neoplasmMammographyMass screeningSensitivity

Identifiers

PMID38285110
PMCPMC11063097
OpenAlexW4391310524

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.