| Title |
Why mammography screening has not lived up to expectations from the randomised trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Causes & Control, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10552-011-9867-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter C. Gøtzsche, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Per-Henrik Zahl, Jan Mæhlen |
| Abstract |
We analysed the relation between tumour sizes and stages and the reported effects on breast cancer mortality with and without screening in trials and observational studies. The average tumour sizes in all the trials suggest only a 12% reduction in breast cancer mortality, which agrees with the 10% reported in the most reliable trials. Recent studies of tumour sizes and tumour stages show that screening has not lowered the rate of advanced cancers. In agreement with this, recent observational studies of breast cancer mortality have failed to find an effect of screening. In contrast, screening leads to serious harms in healthy women through overdiagnosis with subsequent overtreatment and false-positive mammograms. We suggest that the rationale for breast screening be urgently reassessed by policy-makers. The observed decline in breast cancer mortality in many countries seems to be caused by improved adjuvant therapy and breast cancer awareness, not screening. We also believe it is more important to reduce the incidence of cancer than to detect it 'early.' Avoiding getting screening mammograms reduces the risk of becoming a breast cancer patient by one-third. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 19% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Professor | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 17 | 22% |
| Unknown | 8 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 49% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 January 2023.
All research outputs
#865,568
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#75
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,577
of 145,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#1
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 145,480 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 96% of its contemporaries.