↓ Skip to main content

Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: the importance of length of observation period and lead time

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: the importance of length of observation period and lead time
Published in
Breast Cancer Research, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/bcr3427
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen W Duffy, Dharmishta Parmar

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening is a controversial topic. One difficulty in estimation of overdiagnosis is the separation of overdiagnosis from lead time that is the advance in the time of diagnosis of cancers, which confers an artificial increase in incidence when a screening programme is introduced. METHODS: We postulated a female population aged 50-79 with a similar age structure and age-specific breast cancer incidence as in England and Wales before the screening programme. We then imposed a two-yearly screening programme; screening women aged 50-69, to run for twenty years, with exponentially distributed lead time with an average of 40 months in screen-detected cancers. We imposed no effect of the screening on incidence other than lead time. RESULTS: Comparison of age- and time-specific incidence between the screened and unscreened populations showed a major effect of lead time, which could only be adjusted for by follow-up for more than two decades and including ten years after the last screen. From lead time alone, twenty-year observation at ages 50-69 would confer an observed excess incidence of 37%. The excess would only fall below 10% with 25 years or more follow-up. For the excess to be nullified, we would require 30 year follow-up including observation up to 10 years above the upper age limit for screening. CONCLUSION: Studies using shorter observation periods will overestimate overdiagnosis by inclusion of cancers diagnosed early due to lead time among the nominally overdiagnosed tumours.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Other 10 14%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Mathematics 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 15 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2022.
All research outputs
#3,222,025
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research
#335
of 2,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,820
of 207,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research
#6
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 207,268 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.