↓ Skip to main content

Conclusions for mammography screening after 25-year follow-up of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study (CNBSS)

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Conclusions for mammography screening after 25-year follow-up of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study (CNBSS)
Published in
European Radiology, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00330-015-3849-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. H. Heywang-Köbrunner, I. Schreer, A. Hacker, M. R. Noftz, A. Katalinic

Abstract

Twenty-five-year follow-up data of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study (CNBSS) indicated no mortality reduction. What conclusions should be drawn? After conducting a systematic literature search and narrative analysis, we wish to recapitulate important details of this study, which may have been neglected: Sixty-eight percent of all included cancers were palpable, a situation that does not allow testing the value of early detection. Randomisation was performed at the sites after palpation, while blinding was not guaranteed. In the first round, this "randomisation" assigned 19/24 late stage cancers to the mammography group and only five to the control group, supporting the suspicion of severe errors in the randomisation process. The responsible physicist rated mammography quality as "far below state of the art of that time". Radiological advisors resigned during the study due to unacceptable image quality, training, and medical quality assurance. Each described problem may strongly influence the results between study and control groups. Twenty-five years of follow-up cannot heal these fundamental problems. This study is inappropriate for evidence-based conclusions. The technology and quality assurance of the diagnostic chain is shown to be contrary to today's screening programmes, and the results of the CNBSS are not applicable to them. Key Points • The evidence base of the Canadian study (CNBSS) has to be questioned.• Severe flaws in the randomization process and test methods occurred. • Problems were criticized during and after conclusion of the trial by experts.• The results are not applicable to quality-assured screening programs. • The evidence base of this study must be re-analyzed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Other 17 29%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Engineering 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,640,776
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#116
of 4,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,439
of 266,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#5
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,115 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,680 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.