Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 489

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Impact of Mammographic Screening on Breast Cancer Mortality in Europe: A Review of Observational Studies

Open access
Broeders, Mireille, Moss, Sue, Nyström, Lennarth, Njor, Sisse, Jonsson, Håkan, Paap, Ellen, Massat, Nathalie, Duffy, Stephen, Lynge, Elsebeth, Paci, Eugenio·2012·Journal of Medical Screening

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the impact of population-based mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe, considering different methodologies and limitations of the data. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of European trend studies ( n = 17), incidence-based mortality (IBM) studies ( n = 20) and case-control (CC) studies ( n = 8). Estimates of the reduction in breast cancer mortality for women invited versus not invited and/or for women screened versus not screened were obtained. The results of IBM studies and CC studies were each pooled using a random effects meta-analysis. Results: Twelve of the 17 trend studies quantified the impact of population-based screening on breast cancer mortality. The estimated breast cancer mortality reductions ranged from 1% to 9% per year in studies reporting an annual percentage change, and from 28% to 36% in those comparing post- and prescreening periods. In the IBM studies, the pooled mortality reduction was 25% (relative risk [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69–0.81) among invited women and 38% (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.56–0.69) among those actually screened. The corresponding pooled estimates from the CC studies were 31% (odds ratio [OR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.57–0.83), and 48% (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.42–0.65) adjusted for self-selection. Conclusions: Valid observational designs are those where sufficient longitudinal individual data are available, directly linking a woman's screening history to her cause of death. From such studies, the best ‘European’ estimate of breast cancer mortality reduction is 25–31% for women invited for screening, and 38–48% for women actually screened. Much of the current controversy on breast cancer screening is due to the use of inappropriate methodological approaches that are unable to capture the true effect of mammographic 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1258/jms.2012.012078

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 48 references

Cited by

See all 489

Metadata

Authors
Broeders, M., Moss, S., Nyström, L., Njor, S., Jonsson, H., Paap, E., Massat, N., Duffy, S., Lynge, E., & Paci, E.
Venue
Journal of Medical Screening
Published
2012-09
Volume
19
Issue
1_suppl
Pages
14-25
ISSN
  • 0969-1413 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-5793
OpenAlex
W2100940783
Cited by
489
References
48
FWCI
14.49
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: The Impact of Mammographic Screening on Breast Cancer Mortality in Europe: A Review of Observational Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1258/jms.2012.012078
The paper
Broeders, M., Moss, S., Nyström, L., Njor, S., Jonsson, H., Paap, E., Massat, N., Duffy, S., Lynge, E., & Paci, E. (2012). The Impact of Mammographic Screening on Breast Cancer Mortality in Europe: A Review of Observational Studies. Journal of Medical Screening. https://doi.org/10.1258/jms.2012.012078

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.