Imbalance in Reporting Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening
Author Information
Author(s): Jørgensen Karsten Juhl, Klahn Anders, Gøtzsche Peter C
Primary Institution: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Department 3343, Rigshospitalet
Hypothesis
Is there an imbalance in the reporting of benefits and harms in scientific articles on mammography screening related to author affiliation?
Conclusion
Scientific articles tend to emphasize the major benefits of mammography screening over its major harms, and this imbalance is related to the authors' affiliation.
Supporting Evidence
- 96% of articles mentioned benefits while only 62% mentioned harms.
- 38% of articles mentioned only benefits, and 5% mentioned only harms.
- Authors working with screening were more likely to downplay overdiagnosis.
Takeaway
This study found that articles about mammography screening talk more about the good things than the bad things, especially if the authors are involved in screening.
Methodology
The study involved a cross-sectional analysis of articles on mammography screening published in 2004, focusing on the mention of benefits and harms.
Potential Biases
Authors working with screening were less likely to acknowledge harms, indicating potential bias.
Limitations
The study may not capture all articles on the topic, and some author affiliations were unclear.
Statistical Information
P-Value
P < 0.001
Statistical Significance
p<0.001
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website