The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Screening for Breast Cancer
Open accessAbstract
CONTEXT: Breast cancer screening in community practices may be different from that in randomized controlled trials. New screening modalities are becoming available. OBJECTIVES: To review breast cancer screening, especially in the community and to examine evidence about new screening modalities. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: English-language articles of randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness of breast cancer screening were reviewed, as well as meta-analyses, systematic reviews, studies of breast cancer screening in the community, and guidelines. Also, studies of newer screening modalities were assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: All major US medical organizations recommend screening mammography for women aged 40 years and older. Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by about 20% to 35% in women aged 50 to 69 years and slightly less in women aged 40 to 49 years at 14 years of follow-up. Approximately 95% of women with abnormalities on screening mammograms do not have breast cancer with variability based on such factors as age of the woman and assessment category assigned by the radiologist. Studies comparing full-field digital mammography to screen film have not shown statistically significant differences in cancer detection while the impact on recall rates (percentage of screening mammograms considered to have positive results) was unclear. One study suggested that computer-aided detection increases cancer detection rates and recall rates while a second larger study did not find any significant differences. Screening clinical breast examination detects some cancers missed by mammography, but the sensitivity reported in the community is lower (28% to 36%) than in randomized trials (about 54%). Breast self-examination has not been shown to be effective in reducing breast cancer mortality, but it does increase the number of breast biopsies performed because of false-positives. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound are being studied for screening women at high risk for breast cancer but are not recommended for screening the general population. Sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging in high-risk women has been found to be much higher than that of mammography but specificity is generally lower. Effect of the magnetic resonance imaging on breast cancer mortality is not known. A balanced discussion of possible benefits and harms of screening should be undertaken with each woman. CONCLUSIONS: In the community, mammography remains the main screening tool while the effectiveness of clinical breast examination and self-examination are less. New screening modalities are unlikely to replace mammography in the near future for screening the general population.
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
Cancer Screening in Elderly Patients: A Framework for Individualized Decision Making
Walter, L. C., & Covinsky, K. E. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.21.2750 · Cited by 1,003
American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening: Update 2003
Smith, R. A., Saslow, D., Andrews Sawyer, K., Burke, W., Costanza, M. E., Evans, W. P., Foster, R. S., Hendrick, E., Eyre, H. J., & Sener, S. (2003) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.53.3.141 · Cited by 770
Screening for Breast Cancer: Recommendations and Rationale
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2002) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-137-5_part_1-200209030-00011 · Cited by 456
Cited by
Kawamoto, K., Houlihan, C. A., Balas, E. A., & Lobach, D. F. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8f · Cited by 2,703
Prognostic Indices for Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Yourman, L. C., Lee, S. J., Schonberg, M. A., Widera, E. W., & Smith, A. K. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1966 · Cited by 736
Breast Cancer—Epidemiology, Classification, Pathogenesis and Treatment (Review of Literature)
Smolarz, B., Nowak, A. Z., & Romanowicz, H. (2022) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers14102569 · Cited by 587
Interpreting trends in cancer patient survival
DICKMAN, P. W., & ADAMI, H. ‐. (2006) · Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2006.01677.x · Cited by 508
Systematic Review: The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms
Brewer, N. T., Salz, T., & Lillie, S. E. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-7-200704030-00006 · Cited by 455
Metadata
- Authors
- Elmore, J. G.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2005-03-09
- Volume
- 293
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1245
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2096663717
- Cited by
- 1,075
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 50.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Screening for Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.293.10.1245
- The paper
- Elmore, J. G. (2005). Screening for Breast Cancer. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.10.1245
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.