ArticleEuropean journal of public health2026
Use of population-based cancer registry data to evaluate organized breast cancer screening programmes in Europe by mode of detection: a scoping review.
Article in European journal of public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Organized breast cancer screening programmes are a cornerstone of cancer control policy across Europe. Population-based cancer registries (PBCRs) play a central role in monitoring screening performance, outcomes, and programme quality. However, the extent and methodological approaches of registry-based evaluations across Europe have not been comprehensively synthesized. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed studies evaluating organized breast cancer screening programmes in Europe using PBCR data. Studies were identified through systematic database searches and screened using predefined eligibility criteria. Data were extracted on study design, definitions of detection mode, outcome measures, and approaches to bias adjustment. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework guided the methodological analysis. Twenty-six studies were included, mainly from Western and Northern Europe, with most published before 2010. Screen-detected cancers consistently showed lower mortality, better survival, and more favourable tumour characteristics than interval or non-screened cancers. However, reporting of screening indicators was inconsistent. Definitions of detection modes, particularly interval cancers, and approaches to bias adjustment varied widely, limiting comparability. Few studies applied comprehensive bias correction or clearly reported registry-screening data linkage. Registry-based evaluations provide valuable evidence on the impact of breast cancer screening programmes, However, the evidence is limited by methodological heterogeneity and limited analytical standardization, reducing its comparability and policy relevance. Strengthening standardized definitions, improving transparency in analytical approaches, and better integrating programme monitoring with research could enhance the public health value of registry-based screening evaluation.
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.