↓ Skip to main content

Mammography service screening and breast cancer mortality in New Zealand: a National Cohort Study 1999–2011

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Cancer, February 2017
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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Mammography service screening and breast cancer mortality in New Zealand: a National Cohort Study 1999–2011
Published in
British Journal of Cancer, February 2017
DOI 10.1038/bjc.2017.6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Morrell, Richard Taylor, David Roder, Bridget Robson, Marli Gregory, Kirsty Craig

Abstract

This breast cancer mortality evaluation of service screening mammography in New Zealand, the first since commencement of screening in 1999, applies to the 1999-2011 diagnostic period. Individual-level linked information on mammography screening, breast cancer diagnosis and breast cancer mortality is used to analyse differences in breast cancer mortality according to participation in organised screening mammography, as provided by BreastScreen Aotearoa (BSA). Women were followed from the time they became eligible for screening, from age 50 years (1999-2004) and 45 years (⩾2004). Breast cancer mortality from cancers diagnosed during the screening period from 1999 to 2011 (n=4384) is examined in relation to individual screening participation or non-participation during preceding person-years of follow-up from the time of screening eligibility. To account for changes from never- to ever-screened status, breast cancer mortality is calculated for each year in relation to prior accumulated time of participation and non-participation in screening. Breast cancer mortality is also examined in regularly screened women (screened ⩾3 times and mean screening interval ⩽30 months), and irregularly screened women compared with never-screened women. Statistical analyses are by negative binomial and Poisson regression with adjustment for age and ethnic group (Māori, Pacific women) in a repeated-measures analysis. Relative risks for breast cancer mortality compared with never-screened women, are adjusted also for screening selection bias, to indicate the extent of breast cancer mortality reduction in a population offered and not offered mammography screening. Prognostic indicators at diagnosis of breast cancer are also compared between different screening participation groups, including by grade of tumour, extent of disease (spread), multiple tumour status and maximum tumour size using χ(2) statistics, t-tests and two-sample median tests. For 1999-2011, after adjusting for age and ethnicity, breast cancer mortality in ever-screened women is estimated to be 62% (95% CI: 51-70) lower than in never-screened women. After further adjustment for screening selection bias, the mortality reduction in NZ is estimated to be 29% (95% CI: 20-38) at an average screening coverage of 64% for 2001-2011, and 34% (95% CI: 25-43) for recent screening coverage (2012-13, 71%). For irregularly screened women, the mortality reduction is estimated to be 31% (95% CI: 21-40), and 39% (95% CI: 22-52) in regularly screened women compared with never-screened women, after adjusting for age, ethnicity and screening selection bias (using recent 2012-2013 screening coverage of 71%). Ever-screened women diagnosed with breast cancer have more favourable prognostic indicators than never-screened women, with a higher proportion of localised cancer (63 compared with 46%), a higher proportion with a well-differentiated tumour (30 compared with 18%), lower risk of multiple tumours (RR=0.48) and smaller median tumour size (15 mm compared with 20 mm)-all differences are statistically significant (P<0.0001). This is the first total population cohort study of an established nation-wide screening mammography programme using individual-level information on screening participation and mortality outcomes from breast cancer. The findings are in accord with other mammography screening service evaluations and with randomised trials of mammography screening.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 9 February 2017; doi:10.1038/bjc.2017.6 www.bjcancer.com.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 17%
Other 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Researcher 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 29 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Psychology 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 31 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 29 May 2017.
All research outputs
#3,919,414
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#2,677
of 10,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,373
of 420,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#62
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,468 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 420,399 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.