This article illustrates its objective as to evaluate or to assess the strategies used to screen breast cancer in the U.S. This article is reliable because the design used involves six models which use common data elements.
The date collected depends on; competing mortality, mammography characteristics, age- specific incidence and the treatment effects. The study involves twenty screening strategies which have initiation and cessation ages which are varying and have been annually or biennially applied. The results are measured according to the reduction in mortality rate which has occurred due to breast cancer cases, false positive results, and unnecessary biopsies and over diagnosis and the number of mammograms. This makes this article more valid since it follows and gives the details according to its title.
The results given by this journal are reliable since it gives the percentages of the results of both annual and biennial screening strategies of the 6 models. According to this journal, biennial screening at the age of 40 years has reduced the death or mortality rate while the same biennial screening after 69 years results to an additional death rate reduction in the six models. Over diagnosis increased the mortality rate at older ages.
This journal also gives its limitation that the results do not include the death rate results from the false positive, women with unnecessary treatment or results of women who had earlier diagnosis which are indicated as parts of the result measures.
The conclusion made in this journal is that biennial screening has a lot of impact over the annual screening and that it has less harm. The journal has suggested that the best strategy depends on the program, objectives and also considerations of the strategies’ resource, harm and its benefits.
This journal is useful to researchers who are working on the effects of breast cancer screening using schedules that differ from one another. It is also reliable to those working on the benefits and harms of using different schedules of screening breast cancer.
This is an important journal in that it gives the objective of whether examining women who have a history of breast cancer annually which is known as the annual mammography screening other than the usual biennial screening which is normally carried out would be of any use to these women. The method used in this journal is valid because it has grouped women with a family breast cancer history into years. Women aged between 50-69 years are diagnosed in the years 1998-2004. They are also grouped according to whether these women are screened in an annual screening area or in a biennial screening area. The journal has also compared and has given the differences between the results got after screening women from different areas of screening.
This journal has also outlined the results of both diagnoses. This journal is useful because it has analyzed both results in terms of the size of the tumors, node-negative tumors and tumors with higher odds. It has also stated the significant difference between women with a family history and those without a family history.
It has drawn a conclusion that annual screening to 50-69 years women with a family history of breast cancer is significant. It increases the odds of diagnosis with small and node-negative tumors. The journal recommends for further investigation on whether improved prognostic indicators can make better mortality results for women with a family history of breast cancer, and have had screened annually. This journal is reliable because it tries to give solutions on how to reduce the mortality rate of women with a family history of breast cancer.
This journal article is important because it has given the objective of the study as to compare the results of breast cancer in women who have been subjected to different mammography screening frequency policies. The data was collected from women who participated in Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (SMPBC).
This article indicates that in 1997, SMPBC changed the policy from the annual to biennial types of screening mammography for women aged 50-79 years and retained the annual recommendation in women aged 40-49 years. The method used in this journal is reliable because it gives breast cancer results for women in both groups who participated in the program before and after 1997 and they are also compared.
The results presented in this journal are reliable because it has given the total data of women who participated in the program. Comparisons are made between the results of women aged 50-79 years and those aged 40-49 years. Comparisons are also made between the results of women who attended the program before and after 1997.
The journal states that cancer survival had improved for women aged 40-49 who were diagnosed after 1997 but had not changed for women aged 50-79. It also states that breast cancer mortality rate did not change between both periods in either group.
The conclusion made in this journal is valid and it states that the cancer results improved in women who were 40-49 years of age however, for those aged 50-79 years was different. This is because of the changes in the screening frequency which did not result into any changes of the mortality rate of breast cancer in both groups. This journal is reliable to the researchers who are working on the impacts of changing of annual to biennial screening of breast cancer in women at a particular age and in this case 50 to 79 years.
This article indicates its objective as to estimate the effectiveness of the cost of mammography by breast density, age, family with a history of breast cancer, screening intervals and a history of breast biopsy. The design used in this journal is the markov microsimulation model. The data used was collected from different sources which include medical literature, epidemiology, surveillance and the end results program.
This journal has given the targeted population as the women in the U.S who are classified into different age groups. These women must have had mammography at the age of 40 years. The journal also gives the interventions of the study as mammography done annually, biennially, 3-4 years or no mammography. The measures that are used to determine the results include the costs per the quality adjusted in a life year gained and the number of women who have been screened for over 10 years in order to prevent death from breast cancer.
The journal has given the analysis of the results. It has outlined a conclusion that biennial screening costs less than the cost of quality which has been adjusted in a life year gain. It has also given the cost of the biennial screening in dollars depending on the age. This article recommends that mammography should be done for every one or two years at the age of 40 to 50 years without considering that one is at risk of cancer or not. This journal is useful to researchers who are working on breast cancer cause without considering women status of cancer risks or their ages.
This journal states that the regular adherence of screening mammography which is also referred to as the maintenance of mammography normally reduces the mortality and the morbidity rate due to breast cancer. It also states that regular screening of breast cancer is rarely done and that it is not yet known why women do not maintain the regular checkups. The journal outlines the investigations of the longitudinal interpretations why women with breast cancer do not maintain regular screening.
The methods used and have been illustrated well in this journal are reliable. This is because participating women had to be insured and had to have enrolled in an intervention trial and also had to have undergone mammography at least 8 months prior to enrollment. The data used was collected in the years between 2003 and 2008.
This journal is valid because it has given the percentages of the results women who did not have regular screening of breast cancer. It has given the primary results of the actual results. It has indicated that most of the organizations have recommended different intervals of screening. The recommended interval in this journal is screening of women after every one year in women who are 40 years and over. It has also given some of the reasons why most women who have ever undergone screening or they are aged do not maintain a regular mammography screening. It also states that the odds of lack of maintenance of regular screening decreased over by the time. Most women who participated in this study were aged 50 years and over.
This journal has presented the discussion of the findings that would provide the insights in to the targets that would show the interventions of maintaining regular screening of breast cancer in women. The journal states that if women are well taken care of in terms of intervention, they can maintain the regular cancer screening. This journal is useful and also reliable especially to researchers who are working on the reasons why women at risks of cancer do not maintain a regular screening.