Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7866124›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1995

Is the three year breast screening interval too long? Occurrence of interval cancers in NHS breast screening programme's north western region.

C B Woodman, A G Threlfall, C R Boggis, P Prior

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Computer-assisted mammographic imaging.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2000
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Rate and classification of interval cancers in the breast screening programme.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 1997
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

C B WoodmanCentre for Cancer Epidemiology, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Withington, Manchester.
A G Threlfall
C R Boggis
P Prior

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo report the detection rate of interval cancers in women screened by the NHS breast screening programme.

designDetection of interval cancers by computer linkage of records held by the screening centres in the North Western Regional Health Authority with breast cancer registrations at the regional cancer registry.

settingNorth Western Regional Health Authority. SUBJECTS: 137,421 women screened between 1 March 1988 and 31 March 1992 who had a negative screening result.

results297 invasive interval cancers were detected. The rate of detection of interval cancers expressed as a proportion of the underlying incidence was 31% in the first 12 months after screening, 52% between 12 and 24 months, and 82% between 24 and 36 months.

conclusionThe incidence of interval cancers in the third year after breast screening approaches that which would have been expected in the absence of screening and suggests that the three year interval between screens is too long.

Indexed as

MammographyBreast NeoplasmsEnglandFemaleHumansIncidenceMass ScreeningMedical Record LinkageMiddle AgedState MedicineTime FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID7866124
PMCPMC2548620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.