Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9244071›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England1997

A comparative audit of prevalent, incident and interval cancers in the Avon breast screening programme.

P A Sylvester, M N Vipond, E Kutt, J D Davies, A J Webb, J R Farndon

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

P A SylvesterDepartment of Surgery, Bristol Royal Infirmary, UK.
M N Vipond
E Kutt
J D Davies
A J Webb
J R Farndon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Mass ScreeningBreast NeoplasmsEnglandFemaleHumansIncidenceMammographyMedical AuditPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID9244071
PMCPMC2502835

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.