How a charity oversells mammography

  title={How a charity oversells mammography},
  author={Steven Woloshin and Lisa M. Schwartz},
  journal={BMJ : British Medical Journal},
In their occasional series highlighting the exaggerations, distortions, and selective reporting that make some news stories, advertising, and medical journal articles “not so,” Lisa M Schwartz and Steven Woloshin explain how a charity used misleading statistics to persuade women to undergo mammography 
Overdiagnosis in mammography screening: a 45 year journey from shadowy idea to acknowledged reality
  • A. Barratt
  • Medicine
    BMJ : British Medical Journal
  • 2015
Alexandra Barratt summarises and debates overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening and discusses how myriad uncertainties might be resolved so we can move forward
Financial incentives for breast cancer screening undermine informed choice
Theodore Bartholomew, Mirela Colleoni, and Harald Schmidt argue that the focus should be on decision making not uptake when the balance of benefit and harm is subjective
Stakeholders’ positions in the breast screening debate, and media coverage of the debate: a qualitative study
The debate about breast cancer screening, and the increasing focus on its potential harms, received less coverage in the popular media than might have been expected.
Invisible risks, emotional choices--mammography and medical decision making.
Frightened New York City parents agitated for asbestos removal from schools in 1993; public fear trumped expert risk assessment; the parents' demands were met, the victory was celebrated, but then the celebration crashed.
Four Principles to Consider Before Advising Women on Screening Mammography
Four important screening principles applicable to screening mammography are reviewed in order to facilitate informed choice and help women make an informed decision as with any medical intervention.
Walking the tightrope: communicating overdiagnosis in modern healthcare
Communication that empowers the public, patients, clinicians, and policy makers to think differently about overdiagnosis will help support a more sustainable healthcare future for all, argue Kirsten
Cancer screening and accessibility bias: people want screening when informed it saves no lives
Experimental data is presented supporting the claim that individuals are largely unresponsive to data about screening and base their decisions upon factors that professionals would consider inappropriate reasons for screening.
The Barrier to Informed Choice in Cancer Screening: Statistical Illiteracy in Physicians and Patients.
  • O. Wegwarth, G. Gigerenzer
  • Medicine, Political Science
    Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer
  • 2018
A critical mass of informed citizens will not resolve all healthcare problems, but it can constitute a major triggering factor for better care.
Screening mammography – early detection or over-diagnosis? Contribution from Australian data
  • R. Bell
  • Medicine, Political Science
    Climacteric : the journal of the International Menopause Society
  • 2014
The impact of screening mammography is at best neutral but may result in overall harm, and women should be informed of the issue of over-diagnosis.


Overstating the evidence for lung cancer screening: the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP) study.
2 fundamental principles that physicians should remember when thinking about screening are highlighted: survival is always prolonged by early detection, even when deaths are not delayed nor any lives saved, and randomized trials are the only way to reliably determine whether screening does more good than harm.
Screening for breast cancer with mammography.
It is found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death.
Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway.
Screening mammography detected cancer at about the same rate and at the same prognostic stage in Norway and Vermont, with a statistically significantly lower recall rate in Norway.
Do Physicians Understand Cancer Screening Statistics? A National Survey of Primary Care Physicians in the United States
Most primary care physicians mistakenly interpreted improved survival and increased detection with screening as evidence that screening saves lives, and few correctly recognized that only reduced mortality in a randomized trial constitutes evidence of the benefit of screening.
Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer.
The incidence of breast and prostate cancers increased after the introduction of screening but has never returned to prescreening levels, and the increase in the relative fraction of early stage cancers has increased.
Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.
Over 10 years, one third of women screened had an abnormal test result that required additional evaluation, even though no breast cancer was present, and Physicians should educate women about the risk of a false positive result from a screening test for breast cancer.
Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study
Conclusions on over-diagnosis of breast cancer in the Malmö mammographic screening trial can be drawn mainly for women aged 55-69 years at randomisation whose control groups were never screened.
Susan G. Komen-For the Cure
Jason Anthony was a recent business graduate who had just moved to a new city and was settling into a new job. He had started endurance running as a form of exercise and as a way to meet people. A
Are increasing 5-year survival rates evidence of success against cancer?
Although 5-year survival is a valid measure for comparing cancer therapies in a randomized trial, the analysis shows that changes in 5- year survival over time bear little relationship to changes in cancer mortality and appear primarily related to changing patterns of diagnosis.