The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Patients need to consider both benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. OBJECTIVE: To systematically synthesize available evidence on the association of mammographic screening and clinical breast examination (CBE) at different ages and intervals with breast cancer mortality, overdiagnosis, false-positive biopsy findings, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched PubMed (to March 6, 2014), CINAHL (to September 10, 2013), and PsycINFO (to September 10, 2013) for systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (with no limit to publication date), and observational and modeling studies published after January 1, 2000, as well as systematic reviews of all study designs. Included studies (7 reviews, 10 RCTs, 72 observational, 1 modeling) provided evidence on the association between screening with mammography, CBE, or both and prespecified critical outcomes among women at average risk of breast cancer (no known genetic susceptibility, family history, previous breast neoplasia, or chest irradiation). We used summary estimates from existing reviews, supplemented by qualitative synthesis of studies not included in those reviews. FINDINGS: Across all ages of women at average risk, pooled estimates of association between mammography screening and mortality reduction after 13 years of follow-up were similar for 3 meta-analyses of clinical trials (UK Independent Panel: relative risk [RR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.89]; Canadian Task Force: RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.74-0.94]; Cochrane: RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.87]); were greater in a meta-analysis of cohort studies (RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.81]); and were comparable in a modeling study (CISNET; median RR equivalent among 7 models, 0.85 [range, 0.77-0.93]). Uncertainty remains about the magnitude of associated mortality reduction in the entire US population, among women 40 to 49 years, and with annual screening compared with biennial screening. There is uncertainty about the magnitude of overdiagnosis associated with different screening strategies, attributable in part to lack of consensus on methods of estimation and the importance of ductal carcinoma in situ in overdiagnosis. For women with a first mammography screening at age 40 years, estimated 10-year cumulative risk of a false-positive biopsy result was higher (7.0% [95% CI, 6.1%-7.8%]) for annual compared with biennial (4.8% [95% CI, 4.4%-5.2%]) screening. Although 10-year probabilities of false-positive biopsy results were similar for women beginning screening at age 50 years, indirect estimates of lifetime probability of false-positive results were lower. Evidence for the relationship between screening and life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy was low in quality. There was no direct evidence for any additional mortality benefit associated with the addition of CBE to mammography, but observational evidence from the United States and Canada suggested an increase in false-positive findings compared with mammography alone, with both studies finding an estimated 55 additional false-positive findings per extra breast cancer detected with the addition of CBE. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For women of all ages at average risk, screening was associated with a reduction in breast cancer mortality of approximately 20%, although there was uncertainty about quantitative estimates of outcomes for different breast cancer screening strategies in the United States. These findings and the related uncertainty should be considered when making recommendations based on judgments about the balance of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.
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
GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Schünemann, H. J., Tugwell, P., & Knottnerus, A. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011 · Cited by 3,094
Effect of Screening and Adjuvant Therapy on Mortality from Breast Cancer
Berry, D. A., Cronin, K. A., Plevritis, S. K., Fryback, D. G., Clarke, L., Zelen, M., Mandelblatt, J. S., Yakovlev, A. Y., Habbema, J. D. F., & Feuer, E. J. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa050518 · Cited by 2,460
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
Oeffinger, K. C., Fontham, E. T. H., Etzioni, R., Herzig, A., Michaelson, J. S., Shih, Y.-C. T., Walter, L. C., Church, T. R., Flowers, C. R., LaMonte, S. J., et al. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12783 · Cited by 1,653
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
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
Skaane, P., Bandos, A. I., Gullien, R., Eben, E. B., Ekseth, U., Haakenaasen, U., Izadi, M., Jebsen, I. N., Jahr, G., Krager, M., et al. (2013) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.12121373 · Cited by 1,012
Ciatto, S., Houssami, N., Bernardi, D., Caumo, F., Pellegrini, M., Brunelli, S., Tuttobene, P., Bricolo, P., Fantò, C., Valentini, M., et al. (2013) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70134-7 · Cited by 838
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
Mandelblatt, J. S., Cronin, K. A., Bailey, S., Berry, D. A., de Koning, H. J., Draisma, G., Huang, H., Lee, S. J., Munsell, M., Plevritis, S. K., et al. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00010 · Cited by 605
Cited by
A view on drug resistance in cancer
Vasan, N., Baselga, J., & Hyman, D. M. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1730-1 · Cited by 2,770
Smith, R. A., Andrews, K. S., Brooks, D., Fedewa, S. A., Manassaram‐Baptiste, D., Saslow, D., Brawley, O. W., & Wender, R. C. (2017) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21392 · Cited by 719
Causes of death among cancer patients
Zaorsky, N. G., Churilla, T. M., Egleston, B. L., Fisher, S. G., Ridge, J. A., Horwitz, E. M., & Meyer, J. E. (2017) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw604 · Cited by 657
Practice Bulletin Number 179: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening in Average-Risk Women
(2017) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002158 · Cited by 258
Lindholt, J. S., & Søgaard, R. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32250-x · Cited by 234
Metadata
- Authors
- Myers, E. R., Moorman, P., Gierisch, J. M., Havrilesky, L. J., Grimm, L. J., Ghate, S., Davidson, B., Mongtomery, R. C., Crowley, M. J., McCrory, D. C., Kendrick, A., & Sanders, G. D.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2015-10-20
- Volume
- 314
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 1615
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W1938908299
- Cited by
- 637
- References
- 78
- FWCI
- 21.45
- 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: Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2015.13183
- The paper
- Myers, E. R., Moorman, P., Gierisch, J. M., Havrilesky, L. J., Grimm, L. J., Ghate, S., Davidson, B., Mongtomery, R. C., Crowley, M. J., McCrory, D. C., Kendrick, A., & Sanders, G. D. (2015). Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.13183
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.