↓ Skip to main content

What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening? A protocol of a systematic review of reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
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
What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening? A protocol of a systematic review of reviews
Published in
Systematic Reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0510-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

O. Mandrik, O. I. Ekwunife, N. Zielonke, F. Meheus, J. L. Severens, S. K. Lhachimi, R. Murillo

Abstract

Multiple reviews demonstrated high variability in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes among studies on breast cancer screening (BCS) programmes. No study to our knowledge has summarized the current evidence on determinants of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the most used BCS approaches or tried to explain differences in conclusions of systematic reviews on this topic. Based on published reviews, this systematic review aims to assess the degree of variability of determinants for (a) effectiveness and (b) cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes using mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, ultrasonography, or their combinations among the general population. We will perform a comprehensive systematic literature search in Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Medline (via Pubmed). The search will be supplemented with hand searching of references of the included reviews, with hand searching in the specialized journals, and by contacting prominent experts in the field. Additional search for grey literature will be conducted on the websites of international cancer associations and networks. Two trained research assistants will screen titles and abstracts of publications independently, with at least random 10% of all abstracts being also screened by the principal researcher. The full texts of the systematic reviews will then be screened independently by two authors, and disagreements will be solved by consensus. The included reviews will be grouped by publication year, outcomes, designs of original studies, and quality. Additionally, for reviews published since 2011, transparency in reporting will be assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for the review on determinants of effectiveness and a modified PRISMA checklist for the review on determinants for cost-effectiveness. The study will apply the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews checklist to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. We will report the data extracted from the systematic reviews in a systematic format. Meta-meta-analysis of extracted data will be conducted when feasible. This systematic review of reviews will examine the degree of variability in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes. PROSPERO CRD42016050764 and CRD42016050765.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Lecturer 5 5%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 33 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 29%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 35 36%