Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8520272›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1995

Changes in incidence of and mortality from breast cancer in England and Wales since introduction of screening. United Kingdom Association of Cancer Registries.

M Quinn, E Allen

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 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

M QuinnNational Cancer Registration Bureau, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, London.
E Allen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the impact of the NHS breast screening programme on the incidence of and mortality from breast cancer.

designComparison of age specific incidence and mortality before and after the introduction of screening in the late 1980s.

settingEngland and Wales. SUBJECTS: Women aged over 30 years.

resultsIn 1992 the age standardised incidence of breast cancer was 40% higher than in 1979. After the introduction of screening in 1988 recorded incidence rates rose steeply in the screened age group (50-64 year olds) but not in others. In 1992 the rates levelled off at about 25% higher than in 1987. Total mortality from breast cancer has increased steadily since the 1950s; the rates increased earlier in the younger age groups. By the mid-1980s rates had begun to fall in the younger age groups; but total mortality was still among the highest in the world. Age standardised mortality in the 55-69 age group changed little during the first three years of screening but then fell steeply and in 1994 was 12% lower than in 1987.

conclusionsSince the introduction of screening there have been pronounced increases in recorded incidence in the screened age group. Cancer registries have an essential role in assessing screening programmes and cancer services. The steep decrease in mortality in 55-69 year olds which began three years after screening started is unlikely to be due to screening. The widespread adoption of treatment with tamoxifen during this period may be important. With the reduction in mortality already observed and the expected additional benefits from screening, the Health of the Nation target should be achieved.

Indexed as

AgedAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsEnglandFemaleHumansIncidenceMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMortalityRegistriesTime FactorsWales

Identifiers

PMID8520272
PMCPMC2544414

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.