↓ Skip to main content

Benefits and Harms of Screening Mammography by Comorbidity and Age: A Qualitative Synthesis of Observational Studies and Decision Analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2016
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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Benefits and Harms of Screening Mammography by Comorbidity and Age: A Qualitative Synthesis of Observational Studies and Decision Analyses
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11606-015-3580-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dejana Braithwaite, Louise C. Walter, Monika Izano, Karla Kerlikowske

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review to assess the quality and limitations of published studies examining benefits and harms of screening mammography in relation to comorbidity and age. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1980 through June 2013 for studies that examined benefits or harms of screening mammography in women aged 65 years or older in relation to comorbidity. For each study, we extracted data regarding setting, design, quality, screening schedule, measure of comorbidity, and estimates of benefits and/or harms. We reviewed 1760 titles, identifying 7 articles that met the inclusion criteria: prospective cohort (two studies), retrospective cohort (two studies), and decision analyses (three studies). No randomized controlled trials were identified. At least one measure of life expectancy or reduction in the risk of breast cancer death as a marker of benefit was examined in four studies, whereas three studies addressed the harms of screening mammography, including false-positive results. Both cohort studies and decision analyses showed that screening benefits decreased with increasing age and comorbidity burden. The limited evidence currently available suggests that, apart from older women with severe comorbidity, women 65 and older may experience improvements in life expectancy from screening. Given the potential for harm, it is unclear whether the magnitude of the benefit is sufficient to warrant regular screening. Women, clinicians and policymakers should consider these factors in deciding whether continue screening.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 80 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 21 26%
Unknown 21 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 25 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 14 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,046,964
of 25,055,009 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,558
of 8,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,555
of 407,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#18
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,055,009 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,098 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 407,741 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 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.