Model of outcomes of screening mammography: Information to support informed choices

British Medical Journal

Volumn 330, Issue 7497, 2005, Pages 936-938

  Barratt, Alexandra ^a   Howard, Kirsten ^a   Irwig, Les ^a   Salkeld, Glenn ^a   Houssami, Nehmat ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CARCINOMA IN SITU; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; AGE; BREAST TUMOR; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH STATUS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION; PROGNOSIS; RADIOGRAPHY; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MARKOV CHAINS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION; PROGNOSIS;

EID: 17844385289     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38398.469479.8F     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. BreastScreen Australia and Australian Department of Health and Ageing. Who should have a mammogram? www.breastscreen.info.au/who/index.htm (accessed 2 Feb 2005).
2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer. www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm (accessed 2 Feb 2005).
3. General Medical Council. Seeking patients' consent: the ethical considerations. November 1998. www.gmc-uk.org/global_sections/search_frameset. htm (accessed 2 Feb 2005).
4. UK National Screening Committee. Second report of the UK national screening committee. www.nsc.nhs.uk/pdfs/secondreport.pdf (accessed 2 Feb 2005).
5. Thornton H, Edwards A, Baum M. Women need better information about routine mammography. BMJ 2003;327:101-3.
6. Barratt AL, Trevena L, Davey HM, McCaffery K. Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening. BMJ 2004;329:507-10.
7. Drossaert CHC, Boer H, Seydel ER. Does mammographic screening and a negative result affect attitudes towards future breast screening? J Med Screen 2001;8:204-12.
8. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ, Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA 2004;291:71-78.
9. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. BreastScreen Australia monitoring reports 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Cancer series numbers 25 and 26. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2003 (CAN 20 and CAN 21).
10. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. BreastScreen Australia achievement report 1997-1998. Cancer series number 13. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2000 (CAN 8).
11. Queensland Health. BreastScreen Queensland annual statistical report for 1999. Brisbane: Queensland Health, 2001.
12. BreastScreen Victoria. BreastScreen Victoria 2000 and 2001 annual statistical reports. Melbourne: BreastScreen Victoria, 2002-3.
13. BreastScreen SA. BreastSaem SA statistical report 1999-2000. Adelaide: BreastScreen SA, 2003.
14. Van Zee KJ, Liberman L, Samli B, Tran KN, McCormide B, Petrek JA, et al. Long term follow-up of women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving surgery: the effect of age. Cancer 1999;86:1757-67.
15. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SH, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1995;273:149-54.
16. Glasziou P. Meta-analysis adjusting for compliance: the example of screening for breast cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:1251-6.
17. Irwig L, Glasziou P, Barratt A, Salkeld G. Review of the evidence about the value of mammographic screening in 40-49 year old women. Kings Cross, New South Wales: NHMRC National Breast Cancer Centre, 1997.