Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 731

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

UPDATE OF THE SWEDISH TWO-COUNTY PROGRAM OF MAMMOGRAPHIC SCREENING FOR BREAST CANCER

Tabàr, Làszlò, Fagerberg, Gunnar, Duffy, Stephen W., Day, Nicholas E., Gad, Adel, Gröntoft, Otto·1992·Radiologic Clinics of North America

Abstract

The results of the Swedish two-county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer are presented, updated to December 31, 1990, which is an average of 10.8 years follow-up per person. The main result of the trial in terms of breast cancer mortality remained the same: compared with the control group, the group invited to screening had a relative breast cancer mortality of 0.70 (P = 0.0002) with 95% confidence interval (0.58, 0.85). Analysis of survival showed that relative to the control group, the cancers detected at prevalence screen, incidence screens, and in the interval between screens had a good prognosis, whereas cancers detected in those who had refused screening had a very poor prognosis. When adjusted for tumor size, lymph node status, and tumor grade (differentiation), the better survival associated with incidence screen and interval detection was largely accounted for, indicating that the benefit of incidence screening is largely achieved through the effect of screening on the three prognostic variables, notably size of the tumor. Results indicate that to achieve a substantial mortality reduction, 50% of screen-detected invasive cancers should be less than 15 mm in diameter, at least 30% of screen-detected grade 3 tumors should be less than 15 mm, and at least 70% of screen-detected tumors should not have lymph node metastases. The percentage of grade 3 tumors of a given size should be the same in screen-detected cancers as in clinically detected, and breast cancer prevalence at first screen should be at least three times the expected incidence rate in the absence of screening. This should be achieved without the recall rate for further examination exceeding 9%, and procedures including further imaging techniques and fine needle aspiration or core biopsy should be used before resorting to surgical biopsy. These aims can be achieved in specialist screening centers if particular attention is paid to resources for screening and diagnostic evaluation, specialist training of clinical and technologic screening staff, and ongoing monitoring of mammographic quality, recall rates, and the attributes of the tumors detected.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0033-8389(22)02494-0

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 731

Metadata

Authors
Tabàr, L., Fagerberg, G., Duffy, S. W., Day, N. E., Gad, A., & Gröntoft, O.
Venue
Radiologic Clinics of North America
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1992-01
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
187-210
ISSN
0033-8389 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1492182164
Cited by
731
References
0
FWCI
16.08
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: UPDATE OF THE SWEDISH TWO-COUNTY PROGRAM OF MAMMOGRAPHIC SCREENING FOR BREAST CANCER. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0033-8389(22)02494-0
The paper
Tabàr, L., Fagerberg, G., Duffy, S. W., Day, N. E., Gad, A., & Gröntoft, O. (1992). UPDATE OF THE SWEDISH TWO-COUNTY PROGRAM OF MAMMOGRAPHIC SCREENING FOR BREAST CANCER. Radiologic Clinics of North America. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0033-8389(22)02494-0

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.