The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effect of NHS breast screening programme on mortality from breast cancer in England and Wales, 1990-8: comparison of observed with predicted mortality
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the NHS breast screening programme on mortality from breast cancer in women aged 55-69 years over the period 1990-8. DESIGN: Age cohort model with data for 1971-89 used to predict mortality for 1990-8 with assumption of no major effect from screening or improvements in treatment until after 1989. Effect of screening and other factors on mortality estimated by comparing three year moving averages of observed mortality with those predicted (by five year age groups from 50-54 to 75-79), the effect of screening being restricted to certain age groups. SETTING: England and Wales. SUBJECTS: Women aged 40 to 79 years. RESULTS: Compared with predicted mortality in the absence of screening or other effects the total reduction in mortality from breast cancer in 1998 in women aged 55-69 was estimated as 21.3%. Direct effect of screening was estimated as 6.4% (range of estimates from 5.4-11.8%). Effect of all other factors (improved treatment with tamoxifen and chemotherapy, and earlier presentation outside the screening programme) was estimated as 14.9% (range 12.2-14.9%). CONCLUSIONS: By 1998 both screening and other factors, including improvements in treatment, had resulted in substantial reductions in mortality from breast cancer. Many deaths in the 1990s will be of women diagnosed in the 1980s and early 1990s, before invitation to screening. Further major effects from screening and treatment are expected, which together with cohort effects should result in further substantial reductions in mortality from breast cancer, particularly for women aged 55-69, over the next 10 years.
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
Cited by
Kamangar, F., Dores, G. M., & Anderson, W. F. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.05.2308 · Cited by 3,434
Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis
Forouzanfar, M. H., Foreman, K. J., Delossantos, A. M., Lozano, R., Lopez, A. D., Murray, C. J. L., & Naghavi, M. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61351-2 · Cited by 1,009
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
Tabar, 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
Breast-Cancer Tumor Size, Overdiagnosis, and Mammography Screening Effectiveness
Welch, H. G., Prorok, P. C., O’Malley, A. J., & Kramer, B. S. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1600249 · Cited by 699
Metadata
- Authors
- Blanks, R. G.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2000-09-16
- Volume
- 321
- Issue
- 7262
- Pages
- 665-669
- ISSN
- 0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2078574517
- Cited by
- 380
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.48
- 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: Effect of NHS breast screening programme on mortality from breast cancer in England and Wales, 1990-8: comparison of observed with predicted mortality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.321.7262.665
- The paper
- Blanks, R. G. (2000). Effect of NHS breast screening programme on mortality from breast cancer in England and Wales, 1990-8: comparison of observed with predicted mortality. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7262.665
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.