ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England1997
A comparative audit of prevalent, incident and interval cancers in the Avon breast screening programme.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Interval cancers in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme.British journal of cancer · 1999Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 4th year of the Avon breast screening programme comprises two distinct groups: those called for screening for the first time (prevalent group) and those who were initially screened 3 years earlier (incident group). The cancer detection rate, stage of disease and rate of interval cancers in these patients have been compared. For the prevalent groups of year 1 and year 4 there was no statistically significant difference in the cancer detection rate, proportion of small tumours or node positivity. For the prevalent and incident groups of year 4, there was no statistically significant difference in the cancer detection rate or proportion of small tumours. There were significantly fewer node-positive tumours in the incident group (5/45 vs 8/23; P < 0.05). Fifty-six interval cancers presented in the 3-year period between years 1 and 4 of screening; 28 (50%) after 24 months. The screening programme may result in tumours being detected at an earlier stage, but this may be offset by the high rate of interval cancers. This suggests that the time between screens may need to be reduced to 2 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9244071PMC2502835What 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.