Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Protocol

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

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

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Discussion

This systematic review of reviews will examine the degree of variability in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes.

Systematic review registration

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rutgers E, Zackrisson S, Cardoso F. Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2015;26 Suppl 5:8–30.CrossRef
3.
4.
Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Bouvard V, Bianchini F, Straif K. International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working Group. Breast-cancer screening—viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(24):2353–8.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, Herzig A. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599–614.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Breast screening: programme overview. 1 June 2015. https://​www.​gov.​uk/​guidance/​breast-screeningprogram​me-overview.​ Accessed 16 June 2017.
7.
Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, Glick HA, Lis J, Malik F, Reed SD, Rutten F, Sculpher M, Severens J. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):409–18.
8.
Hamashima C, Ohta K, Kasahara Y, Katayama T, Nakayama T, Honjo S, Ohnuki K. A meta-analysis of mammographic screening with and without clinical breast examination. Cancer Sci. 2015;106(7):812–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Lee EH, Park B, Kim NS, Seo HJ, Ko KL, Min JW, Shin MH, Lee K, Lee S, Choi N, Hur MH, Kim D, Kim MJ, Kim SY, Sunwoo S, Dang JY, Kim SY, Kim Y, Lee WC, Jeong J. The Korean guideline for breast cancer screening. J Korean Med Assoc. 2015;58(5):408–19.CrossRef
10.
Nelson HD, Cantor A, Humphrey L, Fu R, Pappas M, Daeges M, Griffin J. Screening for breast cancer: a systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2016. Report No.: 14-05201-EF-1.
11.
Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD001877.
12.
Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration; www.​handbook.​cochrane.​org. Accessed 10 Jan 2017.
13.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA, PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening? A protocol of a systematic review of reviews
Authors
O. Mandrik
O. I. Ekwunife
N. Zielonke
F. Meheus
J. L. Severens
S. K. Lhachimi
R. Murillo
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0510-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Systematic Reviews 1/2017 Go to the issue

Protocol

Barriers and facilitators of access to maternal services for women with disabilities: scoping review protocol

Protocol

Abuse and disrespect in childbirth process and abortion situation in Latin America and the Caribbean—systematic review protocol

Protocol

Identification of validated case definitions for chronic disease using electronic medical records: a systematic review protocol

Protocol

A systematic review of school-based eHealth interventions targeting alcohol use, smoking, physical inactivity, diet, sedentary behaviour and sleep among adolescents: a review protocol

Research

Conclusions in systematic reviews of mammography for breast cancer screening and associations with review design and author characteristics

Protocol

Interventions to prevent hemodynamic instability during renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury: a systematic review protocol