The screening value of mammography for breast cancer : an overview of 22 systematic reviews with evidence mapping (Preprint)
Author:
Abstract
Several meta-analyses have evaluated the screening value of mammography for breast cancer, but the overall results have remained mixed or inconclusive. Comprehensive literature search was conducted for SRs (systematic reviews) in Chinese Biomedical Databases (CBM), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed until July 10, 2020. SRs with meta-analysis reported the benefit and performance of mammography screening were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and performed the methodological quality assessments using The Risk Of Bias In Systematic Reviews (ROBIS). The characteristics of included SRs, the results of the quality of Risk of bias (RoBs) assessment and the pooled estimates of effect size were descriptively summarized using systematically structured tables and evidence mapping. Twenty two systematic reviews with meta-analysis were included. Only 13.6% of SRs were assessed as low-risk bias according to the overall risk of bias rating results in ROBIS tool. Pooled estimates for a reduction in breast cancer mortality attributable to mammography screening were range from 0.51 (OR, 95% CI: 0.46-0.55) to 1.04 (RR, 95% CI: 0.84-1.27). Sensitivity of difference mammography was ranged from 55% to 91%, specificity of difference mammography was ranged from 84% to 97%. According to the results of included SRs suggested, the statistically significant was observed that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) increased the cancer detected rate (CDR) and reduced the recall rate compared to digital mammography (DM), DM increased the CDR compared to screen-film mammography (SFM), and add DBT to digital or synthetic mammography increases the sensitivity, specificity, and CDR than DBT alone. Further study should investigate the value of different imaging technology in breast cancer screening.
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Reference32 articles.
1. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries
2. Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation
3. Performance of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
4. Breast cancer statistics, 2013
5. Breast cancer statistics, 2011
1.学者识别学者识别
2.学术分析学术分析
3.人才评估人才评估
"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370
www.globalauthorid.com
TOP
Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司 京公网安备11010802033243号 京ICP备18003416号-3