Trial reportBreast cancer research and treatment1995
Nonattendance in the Stockholm mammography screening trial: relative mortality and reasons for nonattendance.
Trial report in Breast cancer research and treatment, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes for patients with the same disease treated inside and outside of randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2014Pooled it
- Screening for breast cancer with mammography.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008Pooled it
- Systematic review to determine whether participation in a trial influences outcome.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Pooled it
- Mammography-based screening program: preliminary results from a first 2-year round in a Brazilian region using mobile and fixed units.BMC women's health · 2012Article
- Mammographic screening in older women. Is it worthwhile?Drugs & aging · 1997Review
- Mammographic screening after the age of 65 years: early outcomes in the Nijmegen programme.British journal of cancer · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The first objective of this study was to analyze the survival rate in a group of 69 breast cancers detected among nonattenders in a randomized mammographic screening trial in relation to 142 clinically detected cancers in a nonscreened control population. By analyzing the cancers of the nonattenders we identified two subgroups, one (A) had actively avoided mammography, had cancers in more advanced stages on diagnosis, and had significantly higher mortality from breast cancer than the control group (p = 0.003). The second subgroup (B) had mammography done outside the screening program. This subgroup had a nonsignificant, slightly better survival (p = 0.19) compared to the control group. Concerning stage the cancers in group B were similar to the cancers by the screening program. The second objective was to analyze women's reasons for nonattendance in the screening program. We interviewed 200 randomly selected nonattenders; 33% stated that they never could imaging having mammography (definite nonattenders), 29.5% that they for various reasons had missed the mammography but could imagine having it next time (possible future attenders), and 32% had been examined outside the program. Reasons for nonattendance included disinterest, medical problems, and fear of X-rays. From this interview investigation we believe that the subgroup of definite nonattenders (33%) is difficult to influence. The second subgroup classified as possible future attenders (29.5%) we believe can be influenced by more information and a new opportunity to receive mammography, i.e., a reminder letter. The third subgroup, those examined outside the screening program (32%) were aware of the benefit of mammography, taking action on their own.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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.