Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 407

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Overdiagnosis in Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer in Europe: A Literature Review

Open access
Puliti, Donella, Duffy, Stephen W, Miccinesi, Guido, De Koning, Harry, Lynge, Elsebeth, Zappa, Marco, Paci, Eugenio·2012·Journal of Medical Screening

Abstract

Objectives: Overdiagnosis, the detection through screening of a breast cancer that would never have been identified in the lifetime of the woman, is an adverse outcome of screening. We aimed to determine an estimate range for overdiagnosis of breast cancer in European mammographic service screening programmes. Methods: We conducted a literature review of observational studies that provided estimates of breast cancer overdiagnosis in European population-based mammographic screening programmes. Studies were classified according to the presence and the type of adjustment for breast cancer risk (data, model and covariates used), and for lead time (statistical adjustment or compensatory drop). We expressed estimates of overdiagnosis from each study as a percentage of the expected incidence in the absence of screening, even if the variability in the age range of the denominator could not be removed. Estimates including carcinoma in situ were considered when available. Results: There were 13 primary studies reporting 16 estimates of overdiagnosis in seven European countries (the Netherlands, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, UK and Spain). Unadjusted estimates ranged from 0% to 54%. Reported estimates adjusted for breast cancer risk and lead time were 2.8% in the Netherlands, 4.6% and 1.0% in Italy, 7.0% in Denmark and 10% and 3.3% in England and Wales. Conclusions: The most plausible estimates of overdiagnosis range from 1% to 10%. Substantially higher estimates of overdiagnosis reported in the literature are due to the lack of adjustment for breast cancer risk and/or lead time.

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.2012.012082

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 407

Metadata

Authors
Puliti, D., Duffy, S. W., Miccinesi, G., De Koning, H., Lynge, E., Zappa, M., & Paci, E.
Venue
Journal of Medical Screening
Published
2012-09
Volume
19
Issue
1_suppl
Pages
42-56
ISSN
  • 0969-1413 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-5793
OpenAlex
W2137584842
Cited by
407
References
1
FWCI
21.02
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: Overdiagnosis in Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer in Europe: A Literature Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1258/jms.2012.012082
The paper
Puliti, D., Duffy, S. W., Miccinesi, G., De Koning, H., Lynge, E., Zappa, M., & Paci, E. (2012). Overdiagnosis in Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer in Europe: A Literature Review. Journal of Medical Screening. https://doi.org/10.1258/jms.2012.012082

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.