Cargando…
Conclusions in systematic reviews of mammography for breast cancer screening and associations with review design and author characteristics
BACKGROUND: Debates about the benefits and harms of mammography continue despite the accumulation of evidence. We sought to quantify the disagreement across systematic reviews of mammography and determine whether author or design characteristics were associated with conclusions that were favourable...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5441061/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28532422 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0495-6 |
_version_ | 1783238187757338624 |
---|---|
author | Raichand, Smriti Dunn, Adam G. Ong, Mei-Sing Bourgeois, Florence T. Coiera, Enrico Mandl, Kenneth D. |
author_facet | Raichand, Smriti Dunn, Adam G. Ong, Mei-Sing Bourgeois, Florence T. Coiera, Enrico Mandl, Kenneth D. |
author_sort | Raichand, Smriti |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Debates about the benefits and harms of mammography continue despite the accumulation of evidence. We sought to quantify the disagreement across systematic reviews of mammography and determine whether author or design characteristics were associated with conclusions that were favourable to the use of mammography for routine breast cancer screening. METHODS: We identified systematic reviews of mammography published between January 2000 and November 2015, and extracted information about the selection of evidence, age groups, the use of meta-analysis, and authors’ professions and financial competing interest disclosures. Conclusions about specific age groups were graded as favourable if they stated that there were meaningful benefits, that benefits of mammography outweighed harms, or that harms were inconsequential. The main outcome measures were the proportions of favourable conclusions relative to review design and author characteristics. RESULTS: From 59 conclusions identified in 50 reviews, 42% (25/59) were graded as favourable by two investigators. Among the conclusions produced by clinicians, 63% (12/19) were graded as favourable compared to 32% (13/40) from other authors. In the 50–69 age group where the largest proportion of systematic reviews were focused, conclusions drawn by authors without financial competing interests (odds ratio 0.06; 95% CI 0.07–0.56) and non-clinicians (odds ratio 0.11; 95% CI 0.01–0.84) were less likely to be graded as favourable. There was no trend in the proportion of favourable conclusions over the period, and we found no significant association between review design characteristics and favourable conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the conclusions of systematic reviews of the evidence for mammography have persisted for 15 years. We found no strong evidence that design characteristics were associated with greater support for the benefits of mammography in routine breast cancer screening. Instead, the results suggested that the specific expertise and competing interests of the authors influenced the conclusions of systematic reviews. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0495-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5441061 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54410612017-05-24 Conclusions in systematic reviews of mammography for breast cancer screening and associations with review design and author characteristics Raichand, Smriti Dunn, Adam G. Ong, Mei-Sing Bourgeois, Florence T. Coiera, Enrico Mandl, Kenneth D. Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Debates about the benefits and harms of mammography continue despite the accumulation of evidence. We sought to quantify the disagreement across systematic reviews of mammography and determine whether author or design characteristics were associated with conclusions that were favourable to the use of mammography for routine breast cancer screening. METHODS: We identified systematic reviews of mammography published between January 2000 and November 2015, and extracted information about the selection of evidence, age groups, the use of meta-analysis, and authors’ professions and financial competing interest disclosures. Conclusions about specific age groups were graded as favourable if they stated that there were meaningful benefits, that benefits of mammography outweighed harms, or that harms were inconsequential. The main outcome measures were the proportions of favourable conclusions relative to review design and author characteristics. RESULTS: From 59 conclusions identified in 50 reviews, 42% (25/59) were graded as favourable by two investigators. Among the conclusions produced by clinicians, 63% (12/19) were graded as favourable compared to 32% (13/40) from other authors. In the 50–69 age group where the largest proportion of systematic reviews were focused, conclusions drawn by authors without financial competing interests (odds ratio 0.06; 95% CI 0.07–0.56) and non-clinicians (odds ratio 0.11; 95% CI 0.01–0.84) were less likely to be graded as favourable. There was no trend in the proportion of favourable conclusions over the period, and we found no significant association between review design characteristics and favourable conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the conclusions of systematic reviews of the evidence for mammography have persisted for 15 years. We found no strong evidence that design characteristics were associated with greater support for the benefits of mammography in routine breast cancer screening. Instead, the results suggested that the specific expertise and competing interests of the authors influenced the conclusions of systematic reviews. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0495-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5441061/ /pubmed/28532422 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0495-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Raichand, Smriti Dunn, Adam G. Ong, Mei-Sing Bourgeois, Florence T. Coiera, Enrico Mandl, Kenneth D. Conclusions in systematic reviews of mammography for breast cancer screening and associations with review design and author characteristics |
title | Conclusions in systematic reviews of mammography for breast cancer screening and associations with review design and author characteristics |
title_full | Conclusions in systematic reviews of mammography for breast cancer screening and associations with review design and author characteristics |
title_fullStr | Conclusions in systematic reviews of mammography for breast cancer screening and associations with review design and author characteristics |
title_full_unstemmed | Conclusions in systematic reviews of mammography for breast cancer screening and associations with review design and author characteristics |
title_short | Conclusions in systematic reviews of mammography for breast cancer screening and associations with review design and author characteristics |
title_sort | conclusions in systematic reviews of mammography for breast cancer screening and associations with review design and author characteristics |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5441061/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28532422 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0495-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT raichandsmriti conclusionsinsystematicreviewsofmammographyforbreastcancerscreeningandassociationswithreviewdesignandauthorcharacteristics AT dunnadamg conclusionsinsystematicreviewsofmammographyforbreastcancerscreeningandassociationswithreviewdesignandauthorcharacteristics AT ongmeising conclusionsinsystematicreviewsofmammographyforbreastcancerscreeningandassociationswithreviewdesignandauthorcharacteristics AT bourgeoisflorencet conclusionsinsystematicreviewsofmammographyforbreastcancerscreeningandassociationswithreviewdesignandauthorcharacteristics AT coieraenrico conclusionsinsystematicreviewsofmammographyforbreastcancerscreeningandassociationswithreviewdesignandauthorcharacteristics AT mandlkennethd conclusionsinsystematicreviewsofmammographyforbreastcancerscreeningandassociationswithreviewdesignandauthorcharacteristics |