The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Benefit of Screening Mammography in Women Aged 40-49: A New Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Open accessAbstract
Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of screening mammography have been conducted involving women aged 40-49 at entry. Current data are now available from these trials at 10.5 to 18 years of follow-up (average follow-up time: 12.7 years). Meta-analysis has been performed using a Mantel-Haenszel estimator method to combine current follow-up data from the eight RCTs of mammography that included women aged 40-49 at entry, including new follow-up data presented at the NIH Consensus Development Conference held January 21-23, 1997. Combining the most recent follow-up data on women aged 40-49 at entry into all eight RCTs yields a statistically significant 18% mortality reduction among women invited to screening mammography (relative risk: 0.82; 95% confidence interval: 0.71-0.95). Combining all current follow-up data on women aged 40-49 at entry into the five Swedish RCTs yields a statistically significantly 29% mortality reduction among women invited to screening (relative risk: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.57-0.89). Meta-analysis including the most recent follow-up data from all eight RCTs involving women aged 40-49 at entry demonstrates for the first time a statistically significant mortality reduction due to regular screening mammography in women of this age group.
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
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689
Cited by
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
Self-citationTabar, L., Yen, M.-F., Vitak, B., Chen, H.-H. T., Smith, R. A., & Duffy, S. W. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13143-1 · Cited by 742
Self-citationMoss, S. M., Cuckle, H., Evans, A., Johns, L., Waller, M., & Bobrow, L. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)69834-6 · Cited by 503
Anderson, B. O., Shyyan, R., Eniu, A., Smith, R. A., Yip, C.-H., Bese, N. S., Chow, L. W. C., Masood, S., Ramsey, S. D., & Carlson, R. W. (2006) · The Breast Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1075-122x.2006.00199.x · Cited by 359
Self-citationUpdate on mammography trends: Comparisons of rates in 2000, 2005, and 2008
Breen, N., Gentleman, J. F., & Schiller, J. S. (2011) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.25679 · Cited by 155
Metadata
- Authors
- Hendrick, R. E., Smith, R. A., Rutledge, J. H., & Smart, C. R.
- Venue
- JNCI Monographs
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-01
- Volume
- 1997
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 87-92
- ISSN
- 1052-6773 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6614
- OpenAlex
- W2189147828
- Cited by
- 419
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Benefit of Screening Mammography in Women Aged 40-49: A New Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jncimono/1997.22.87
- The paper
- Hendrick, R. E., Smith, R. A., Rutledge, J. H., & Smart, C. R. (1997). Benefit of Screening Mammography in Women Aged 40-49: A New Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. JNCI Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimono/1997.22.87
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.