Research ArticleSpecial Communications
Promoting Screening Mammography: Insight or Uptake?
John D. Keen
The Journal of the American Board of Family
Medicine November 2010, 23 (6) 775-782; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2010.06.100065
References
- ↵
- ↵Peres J. Mammography screening: after the storm, calls for more personalized approaches. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 9–11.
- ↵Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 727–37, W237–742.
- ↵Marshall E. Public health. Brawling over mammography. Science 2010; 327: 936–8.
- ↵Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Sox HC, Fischhoff B, Welch HG. US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross-sectional survey. BMJ 2000; 320: 1635–40.
- ↵Stefanek ME, Gritz ER, Vernon SW. Mammography and women under 50: déjà vu all over again? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010; 19: 635–9.
- ↵Fogelin RJ. Understanding arguments: an introduction to informal logic. 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1982.
- ↵Brinker NG. With breast screenings, every woman counts. USA Today 7 December 2009:Opinion;9A.
- ↵
- ↵Garton C. NFL players proudly wear pink. USA Today 7 October 2009. Available at: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/kindness/post/2009/10/nfl-players-proudly-wear-pink-/1. Accessed 16 September 2010.
- ↵Avon Foundation for Women. Early detection saves lives: breast health resource guide—information, support and resources to use and share. 8th ed. Available at: http://www.avoncompany.com/women/avoncrusade/bccguide.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2010.
- ↵Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Know your chances: understanding health statistics. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2008.
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵Domenighetti G, D’Avanzo B, Egger M, et al. Women's perception of the benefits of mammography screening: population-based survey in four countries. Int J Epidemiol 2003; 32: 816–21.
- ↵Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 1216–20.
- ↵Nystrom L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 1993; 341: 973–8.
- ↵Welch HG, Black WC. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 605–13.
- ↵Kramer BS, Croswell JM. Cancer screening: the clash of science and intuition. Annu Rev Med 2009; 60: 125–37.
- ↵Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 2009; 302: 1685–92.
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵Gotzsche PC, Hartling OJ, Nielsen M, Brodersen J, Jorgensen KJ. Breast screening: the facts–or maybe not. BMJ 2009; 338: b86.
- ↵Heath I. Life and death. It is not wrong to say no. BMJ 2009; 338: b2529.
- ↵
- ↵Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ 2009; 339: b2587.
- ↵
- ↵Morrell S, Barratt A, Irwig L, Howard K, Biesheuvel C, Armstrong B. Estimates of overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer associated with screening mammography. Cancer Causes Control 2010; 21: 275–82.
- ↵Sackett DL. The arrogance of preventive medicine. CMAJ 2002; 167: 363–4.
- ↵American Cancer Society guidelines still advise yearly mammography for women aged 40–49 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57: 187–8.
- ↵Partridge AH, Winer EP. On mammography–more agreement than disagreement. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 2499–501.
- ↵Berlin L, Hall FM. More mammography muddle: emotions, politics, science, costs, and polarization. Radiology 2010; 255: 311–6.
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. The risk of death by age, sex, and smoking status in the United States: putting health risks in context. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 845–53.
- ↵National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health. Statistical research and applications. Cancer query system: probability of developing or dying of cancer. Available at: http://srab.cancer.gov/devcan/canques.html. Accessed 5 June 2010.
- ↵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.
- ↵
- Welch HG. Overdiagnosis and mammography screening. BMJ 2009; 339: b1425.
- Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. The benefits and harms of mammography screening: understanding the trade-offs. JAMA 2010; 303: 164–5.
- ↵Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006; 368: 2053–60.
- ↵National Cancer Institute, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Performance measures for 3,884,059 screening mammography examinations from 1996 to 2007 by age. Available at: http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/performance/screening/perf_age.html. Accessed 25 May 2010.
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵Gotzsche PC, Hartling OJ, Nielsen M, Brodersen J. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. 2008. Available at: http://www.cochrane.dk/screening/mammography-leaflet.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2010.
In this issue
The Journal of the American Board of Family
Medicine
Vol. 23, Issue 6
November-December 2010
Promoting Screening Mammography: Insight or Uptake?
John D. Keen
The Journal of the American Board of Family
Medicine Nov 2010, 23 (6) 775-782; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.06.100065
Jump to section
Related Articles
- No related articles found.