The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Screening for breast cancer with mammography
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed (22 November 2012) and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (22 November 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a trial because the randomisation had failed to produce comparable groups.The eligible trials included 600,000 women in the analyses in the age range 39 to 74 years. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on total cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Total numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42), as were number of mastectomies (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32). The use of radiotherapy was similarly increased whereas there was no difference in the use of chemotherapy (data available in only two trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings. To help ensure that the women are fully informed before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk. Because of substantial advances in treatment and greater breast cancer awareness since the trials were carried out, it is likely that the absolute effect of screening today is smaller than in the trials. Recent observational studies show more overdiagnosis than in the trials and very little or no reduction in the incidence of advanced cancers with 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
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
The Causes of Cancer: Quantitative Estimates of Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States Today
Doll, R., & Peto, R. (1981) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/66.6.1192 · Cited by 3,927
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
Prevalence of and Factors Associated With Persistent Pain Following Breast Cancer Surgery
Gärtner, R., Jensen, M.-B., Nielsen, J., Ewertz, M., Kroman, N., & Kehlet, H. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1568 · Cited by 908
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
Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
Siu, A. L., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m15-2886 · Cited by 2,094
Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics
Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., & Woloshin, S. (2007) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x · Cited by 1,336
International Variation in Female Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates
DeSantis, C. E., Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Lortet-Tieulent, J., Anderson, B. O., & Jemal, A. (2015) · Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-0535 · Cited by 804
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
Diagnostic Concordance Among Pathologists Interpreting Breast Biopsy Specimens
Elmore, J. G., Longton, G. M., Carney, P. A., Geller, B. M., Onega, T., Tosteson, A. N. A., Nelson, H. D., Pepe, M. S., Allison, K. H., Schnitt, S. J., et al. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.1405 · Cited by 751
Metadata
- Authors
- Gøtzsche, P. C., & Jørgensen, K. J.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-06-04
- Volume
- 2013
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- CD001877-CD001877
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- OpenAlex
- W1549906179
- Cited by
- 1,869
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 93.28
- 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 with mammography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd001877.pub5
- The paper
- Gøtzsche, P. C., & Jørgensen, K. J. (2013). Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001877.pub5
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.