The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
Open accessAbstract
DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer in the general population. METHODS: The USPSTF examined the evidence on the efficacy of 5 screening modalities in reducing mortality from breast cancer: film mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging in order to update the 2002 recommendation. To accomplish this update, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review of 6 selected questions relating to benefits and harms of screening, and 2) a decision analysis that used population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of starting and ending mammography screening at different ages and using annual versus biennial screening intervals. RECOMMENDATIONS: The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. (I statement).
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 for Breast Cancer: Recommendations and Rationale
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2002) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-137-5_part_1-200209030-00011 · Cited by 456
Self-citationTrends in Metastatic Breast and Prostate Cancer — Lessons in Cancer Dynamics
Welch, H. G., Gorski, D. H., & Albertsen, P. C. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1510443 · Cited by 188
Cited by
Phelan, J. C., Link, B. G., & Tehranifar, P. (2010) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.1177/0022146510383498 · Cited by 2,533
Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
Siu, A. L., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m15-2886 · Cited by 2,094
Communicating scientific uncertainty
Fischhoff, B., & Davis, A. L. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1317504111 · Cited by 312
Consequences Validity Evidence: Evaluating the Impact of Educational Assessments
Cook, D. A., & Lineberry, M. (2016) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001114 · Cited by 129
Soo, M. S., Jarosz, J. A., Wren, A. A., Soo, A. E., Mowery, Y. M., Johnson, K. S., Yoon, S. C., Kim, C., Hwang, E. S., Keefe, F. J., et al. (2016) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.12.004 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force*
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2009-11-17
- Volume
- 151
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 716-726
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2579520182
- Cited by
- 1,686
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 69.52
- 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
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.