Are benefits and harms in mammography screening given equal attention in scientific articles? A cross-sectional study

BMC Medicine

Volumn 5, Issue , 2007, Pages

  Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl ^a   Klahn, Anders ^a   Gøtzsche, Peter C ^a  

^a Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA EXTRACTION; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MEDLINE; ORGANIZATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PUBLICATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIOLOGIST; RESEARCH SUBJECT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK REDUCTION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SURGEON; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION; FEMALE; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICS;

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; JOURNALISM, MEDICAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PERIODICALS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 34347384396     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17417015     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-5-12     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ioannidis JP Evans SJ Gøtzsche PC O'Neill RT Altman DG Schulz K Moher D Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement Ann Intern Med 2004 141 781-788 15545678
2. General Medical Council Seeking patients' consent: The ethical considerations London: GMC Guidelines http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ current/library/consent.asp
3. Slaytor EK Ward JE How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: Analysis of 58 pamphlets BMJ 1998 317 263-264 28619 9677220
4. Croft E Barratt A Butow P Information about tests for breast cancer: what are we telling people? J Fam Pract 2002 51 858-860 12401156
5. Rasky E Groth S Information materials on mammography screening in Austria - do they help women with informed decision? Soz Praventiv Med 2004 49 391-397 10.1007/s00038-004-3092-0 15669439
6. Jørgensen KJ Gøtzsche PC Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: Cross sectional study BMJ 2004 328 148-151 314513 14726344 10.1136/ bmj.328.7432.148
7. Jørgensen KJ Gøtzsche PC Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography BMJ 2006 332 538-541 1388137 16513713 10.1136/bmj.332.7540.538
8. Wells J Marshall P Crawley B Dickersin K Newspaper reporting of screening mammography Ann Intern Med 2001 135 1029-1037 11747381
9. Vainio H Bianchini F IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention: Breast Cancer Screening Lyon: IARCPress 2002 7
10. Zahl PH Strand BH Mæhlen J Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: Prospective cohort study BMJ 2004 328 921-924 390204 15013948 10.1136/ bmj.38044.666157.63
11. Als-Nielsen B Chen W Gluud C Kjærgard LL Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: A reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 2003 290 921-928 10.1001/jama.290.7.921 12928469
12. Chalmers TC Frank CS Reitman D Minimizing the three stages of publication bias JAMA 1990 263 1392-1395 10.1001/jama.263.10.1392 2406473
13. Barnes DE Bero LA Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions JAMA 1998 279 1566-1570 10.1001/ jama.279.19.1566 9605902
14. Gøtzsche PC Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis Control Clin Trials 1989 10 31-56 10.1016/ 0197-2456(89)90017-2 2702836
15. Assendelft WJ Koes BW Knipschild PG Bouter LM The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation JAMA 1995 274 1942-1948 10.1001/jama.274.24.1942 8568990
16. Schmidt LM Gøtzsche PC Of mites and men: Reference bias in narrative review articles: A systematic review J Fam Pract 2005 54 334-338 15833223
17. Ridker PM Torres J Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005 JAMA 2006 295 2270-2274 10.1001/jama.295.19.2270 16705108
18. Ravnskov U Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: frequency of citation and outcome BMJ 1992 305 15-19 1882525 1638188
19. Gøtzsche PC Reference bias in reports of drug trials BMJ 1987 295 654-656 1257776 3117277
20. Altman DG Practical Statistics for Medical Research London: Chapman & Hall 1991
21. Charnock D Shepperd S Needham G Gann R DISCERN: An instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices J Epidemiol Community Health 1999 53 105-111 10396471
22. Elwyn G O'Connor A Stacey D Volk R Edwards A Coulter A Thomson R Barratt A Barry M Bernstein S Butow P Clarke A Entwistle V Feldman-Stewart D Holmes-Rovner M Llewellyn-Thomas H Moumjid N Mulley A Ruland C Sepucha K Sykes A Whelan T The Internantional Patient DecisionAids Standards(IPDAS) Collaboration Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: Online international Delphi consensus process BMJ 2006 333 417 422 1553508 16908462 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE
23. Gray J Evidence-Based Healthcare. How to Make Health Policy and Management Decisions Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone 1997 24
24. Gøtzsche PC Nielsen M Screening for breast cancer with mammography Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006 4 CD001877 17054145
25. Humphrey LL Helfand M Chan BK Woolf SH Breast cancer screening: A summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med 2002 137 347-360 12204020
26. Olsen O Gøtzsche PC Screening for breast cancer with mammography Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001 4 CD001877 11687128
27. Olsen O Gøtzsche PC Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography Lancet 2001 358 1340-1342 10.1016/ S0140-6736(01)06449-2 11684218
28. Gøtzsche PC On the benefits and harms of screening for breastcancer Int J Epidemiol 2004 33 56-64 10.1093/ije/dyh014 15075145
29. Douek M Baum M Mass breast screening: Is there a hidden cost? Br J Surg 2003 90 44-45
30. Barratt A Howard K Irwig L Salkeld G Houssami N Model of outcomes of screening mammography: Information to support informed choices BMJ 2005 330 936-940 556337 15755755 10.1136/bmj.38398.469479.8F
31. Jonsson H Johansson R Lenner P Increased incidence of invasive breast cancer after the introduction of service screening with mammography in Sweden Int J Cancer 2005 117 842-847 10.1002/ijc.21228 15957172
32. Zackrisson S Andersson I Janzon L Manjer J Garne JP Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmo mammographic screening trial: Follow-up study BMJ 2006 332 689-692 1410836 16517548 10.1136/bmj.38764.572569.7C
33. Gøtzsche PC Jørgensen KJ Estimate of harm/benefit ratioof mammography screening was five times too optimistic BMJ 2006 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/691
34. Fahey T Griffiths S Peters TJ Evidence based purchasing: Understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews BMJ 1995 311 1056-1059 7580661
35. Schwartz LM Woloshin S Dvorin EL Welch G Ratio meassures in Leading Medical Journals: Structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks BMJ 2006 333 1248-1253 1702463 17060338 10.1136/ bmj.38985.564317.7C