The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Systematic Assessment of Benefits and Risks to Guide Breast Cancer Screening Decisions
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among US women. Mammography screening may be associated with reduced breast cancer mortality but can also cause harm. Guidelines recommend individualizing screening decisions, particularly for younger women. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the evidence on the mortality benefit and chief harms of mammography screening and what is known about how to individualize mammography screening decisions, including communicating risks and benefits to patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched MEDLINE from 1960-2014 to describe (1) benefits of mammography, (2) harms of mammography, and (3) individualizing screening decisions and promoting informed decision making. We also manually searched reference lists of key articles retrieved, selected reviews, meta-analyses, and practice recommendations. We rated the level of evidence using the American Heart Association guidelines. RESULTS: Mammography screening is associated with a 19% overall reduction of breast cancer mortality (approximately 15% for women in their 40s and 32% for women in their 60s). For a 40- or 50-year-old woman undergoing 10 years of annual mammograms, the cumulative risk of a false-positive result is about 61%. About 19% of the cancers diagnosed during that 10-year period would not have become clinically apparent without screening (overdiagnosis), although there is uncertainty about this estimate. The net benefit of screening depends greatly on baseline breast cancer risk, which should be incorporated into screening decisions. Decision aids have the potential to help patients integrate information about risks and benefits with their own values and priorities, although they are not yet widely available for use in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: To maximize the benefit of mammography screening, decisions should be individualized based on patients' risk profiles and preferences. Risk models and decision aids are useful tools, but more research is needed to optimize these and to further quantify overdiagnosis. Research should also explore other breast cancer screening strategies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M. J., Bennett, C. L., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5 · Cited by 6,685
Gail, M. H., Brinton, L. A., Byar, D. P., Corle, D. K., Green, S. B., Schairer, C., & Mulvihill, J. J. (1989) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879 · Cited by 3,334
Screening for breast cancer with mammography
Gøtzsche, P. C., & Jørgensen, K. J. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001877.pub5 · Cited by 1,869
Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008 · Cited by 1,686
Screening for Breast Cancer: An Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Nelson, H. D., Tyne, K., Naik, A., Bougatsos, C., Chan, B. K., & Humphrey, L. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00009 · Cited by 1,248
Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials
Nyström, L., Andersson, I., Bjurstam, N., Frisell, J., Nordenskjöld, B., & Rutqvist, L. E. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08020-0 · Cited by 1,183
Screening, T. I. U. P. O. B. C., Marmot, M. G., Altman, D. G., Cameron, D. A., Dewar, J. A., Thompson, S. G., & Wilcox, M. (2013) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.177 · Cited by 1,069
Ten-Year Risk of False Positive Screening Mammograms and Clinical Breast Examinations
Elmore, J. G., Barton, M. B., Moceri, V. M., Polk, S., Arena, P. J., & Fletcher, S. W. (1998) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199804163381601 · Cited by 1,053
Tabár, L., Vitak, B., Chen, T. H.-H., Yen, A. M.-F., Cohen, A., Tot, T., Chiu, S. Y.-H., Chen, S. L.-S., Fann, J. C.-Y., Rosell, J., et al. (2011) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.11110469 · Cited by 791
Miller, A. B., Wall, C., Baines, C. J., Sun, P., To, T., & Narod, S. A. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g366 · Cited by 702
Cited by
Clinical Diagnosis and Management of Breast Cancer
McDonald, E. S., Clark, A. S., Tchou, J., Zhang, P., & Freedman, G. M. (2016) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.157834 · Cited by 613
Ultrasound Imaging Technologies for Breast Cancer Detection and Management: A Review
Guo, R., Lu, G., Qin, B., & Fei, B. (2018) · Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.09.012 · Cited by 542
Early Detection of Cancer: Past, Present, and Future
Schiffman, J. D., Fisher, P. G., & Gibbs, P. (2015) · American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book · doi:10.14694/edbook_am.2015.35.57 · Cited by 327
Global guidelines for breast cancer screening: A systematic review
Ren, W., Chen, M., Qiao, Y., & Zhao, F. (2022) · The Breast · doi:10.1016/j.breast.2022.04.003 · Cited by 325
Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666
Berg, W. A., Bandos, A. I., Mendelson, E. B., Lehrer, D., Jong, R. A., & Pisano, E. D. (2016) · Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djv367 · Cited by 309
Metadata
- Authors
- Pace, L. E., & Keating, N. L.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2014-04-02
- Volume
- 311
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1327
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2004292826
- Cited by
- 461
- References
- 66
- FWCI
- 50.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Systematic Assessment of Benefits and Risks to Guide Breast Cancer Screening Decisions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2014.1398
- The paper
- Pace, L. E., & Keating, N. L. (2014). A Systematic Assessment of Benefits and Risks to Guide Breast Cancer Screening Decisions. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.1398
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.