Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jun;18(3):83-9.
doi: 10.1136/eb-2012-101216. Epub 2013 May 1.

Citations of scientific results and conflicts of interest: the case of mammography screening

Kristine Rasmussen  1 , Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Peter C Gøtzsche
Affiliations
Free PMC article

Citations of scientific results and conflicts of interest: the case of mammography screening

Kristine Rasmussen et al. Evid Based Med. 2013 Jun.
Free PMC article

Abstract

Introduction: In 2001, a Cochrane review of mammography screening questioned whether screening reduces breast cancer mortality, and a more comprehensive review in Lancet, also in 2001, reported considerable overdiagnosis and overtreatment. This led to a heated debate and a recent review of the evidence by UK experts intended to be independent.

Objective: To explore if general medical and specialty journals differed in accepting the results and methods of three Cochrane reviews on mammography screening.

Methods: We identified articles citing the Lancet review from 2001 or updated versions of the Cochrane review (last search 20 April 2012). We explored which results were quoted, whether the methods and results were accepted (explicit agreement or quoted without caveats), differences between general and specialty journals, and change over time.

Results: We included 171 articles. The results for overdiagnosis were not quoted in 87% (148/171) of included articles and the results for breast cancer mortality were not quoted in 53% (91/171) of articles. 11% (7/63) of articles in general medical journals accepted the results for overdiagnosis compared with 3% (3/108) in specialty journals (p=0.05). 14% (9/63) of articles in general medical journals accepted the methods of the review compared with 1% (1/108) in specialty journals (p=0.001). Specialty journals were more likely to explicitly reject the estimated effect on breast cancer mortality 26% (28/108), compared with 8% (5/63) in general medical journals, p=0.02.

Conclusions: Articles in specialty journals were more likely to explicitly reject results from the Cochrane reviews, and less likely to accept the results and methods, than articles in general medical journals. Several specialty journals are published by interest groups and some authors have vested interests in mammography screening.

Keywords: Public Health; Qualitative Research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of article exclusion.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Olsen O, Gøtzsche PC. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;CD001877. - PubMed
    1. Olsen O, Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001;358:1340–2 - PubMed
    1. Gøtzsche PC. Mammography screening: truth, lies and controversy. London: Radcliffe Publishing, 2012 - PubMed
    1. Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;CD001877. - PubMed
    1. Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;CD001877. - PubMed

MeSH terms