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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Screening Mammography — A Long Run for a Short Slide?
Welch, H. G. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejme1008369 · Cited by 113
Cited by
Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R. L., Laversanne, M., Soerjomataram, I., Jemal, A., & Bray, F. (2021) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21660 · Cited by 108,699
Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment of Prostate Cancer
Loeb, S., Bjurlin, M. A., Nicholson, J., Tammela, T. L., Penson, D. F., Carter, H. B., Carroll, P., & Etzioni, R. (2014) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062 · Cited by 964
International Variation in Female Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates
DeSantis, C. E., Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Lortet-Tieulent, J., Anderson, B. O., & Jemal, A. (2015) · Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-0535 · Cited by 804
Kempt, H., & Nagel, S. K. (2022) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2021-107440 · Cited by 87
The economics of diagnostic safety
Slawomirski, L., Kelly, D., de Bienassis, K., Kallas, K.-A., & Klazinga, N. (2025) · OECD Health Working Papers · doi:10.1787/fc61057a-en · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Puliti, D., Duffy, S. W., Miccinesi, G., De Koning, H., Lynge, E., Zappa, M., & Paci, E.
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Screening
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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.