Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9061265›Full record

ReviewDrugs & aging1997

Mammographic screening in older women. Is it worthwhile?

J A van Dijck, M J Broeders, A L Verbeek

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs & aging, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J A van DijckDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. J.vanDijck@mie.kun.nl
M J Broeders
A L Verbeek
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLDutch Expert Centre for Screening · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The optimal upper age limit in mammographic screening for breast cancer is still a matter for debate. The incidence of breast cancer rises gradually with increasing age and, without screening, breast cancer in elderly women is diagnosed at a more advanced stage than in younger women. After menopause, much of the glandular tissue of the breast is replaced by fat, which facilitates the mammographic detection of breast cancer in older women. Furthermore, the tumour growth rate decreases with increasing age. Recently, a reduction in breast cancer mortality due to mammographic screening has been shown for women aged up to 75 years. There is a lack of data for women over the age of 75 years, however, because the number of women screened in the only study that included this age category is too small to give reliable results. We conclude that mammographic screening is beneficial at least up to the age of 75 years, and may also be beneficial up to age 85 years in healthy women with a good life expectancy.

Indexed as

MammographyMass ScreeningAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPalpation

Identifiers

PMID9061265
OpenAlexW1761077208

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.