Interval cancer · breast cancer screening (non‐dense breasts)
Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography showed no clear difference in interval cancer compared with mammography alone (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
False‐positive rate in women with non‐dense breasts · breast cancer screening (non‐dense breasts)
Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography leads to higher false‐positive rate in women with non‐dense breasts compared with mammography alone (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
False‐negative rate in women with non‐dense breasts · breast cancer screening (non‐dense breasts)
Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography probably leads to lower false‐negative rate in women with non‐dense breasts compared with mammography alone (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Biopsy rate in women with non‐dense breasts · breast cancer screening (non‐dense breasts)
Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography leads to higher biopsy rate in women with non‐dense breasts compared with mammography alone (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
All‐cause mortality · s of women with dense and non‐dense breasts
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Incremental cancer detection: cohort studies · s of women with dense and non‐dense breasts
Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography leads to higher incremental cancer detection: RCT compared with mammography alone (high certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
Incremental detection of invasive cancers · s of women with dense and non‐dense breasts
Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography showed no clear difference in incremental detection of invasive cancers: RCT compared with mammography alone (low certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
Interval cancer · s of women with dense and non‐dense breasts
Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography leads to lower interval cancer compared with mammography alone (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Lymph node status · s of women with dense and non‐dense breasts
Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography probably leads to lower lymph node status compared with mammography alone (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Overall survival,assessed as time to any death · people with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer
It is very uncertain whether skin‐sparing mastectomy changes overall survival,assessed as time to any death compared with conventional mastectomy (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
HR 0.41 [0.17, 1.02]
1306 participants
Very low
Local recurrence‐free survival · people with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer
It is very uncertain whether skin‐sparing mastectomy changes local recurrence‐free survival compared with conventional mastectomy (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
HR 0.82 [0.47, 1.42]
5690 participants
Very low
Overall complications,assessed using the number of participants with at least one local or systemic complication · people with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer
It is very uncertain whether skin‐sparing mastectomy changes overall complications,assessed using the number of participants with… compared with conventional mastectomy (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 1.55 [0.97, 2.46]
677 participants
Very low
Breast reconstruction loss · people with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer
It is very uncertain whether skin‐sparing mastectomy changes breast reconstruction loss compared with conventional mastectomy (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 1.79 [0.31, 10.35]
475 participants
Very low
Skin necrosis · people with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer
It is very uncertain whether skin‐sparing mastectomy changes skin necrosis compared with conventional mastectomy (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 1.15 [0.62, 2.12]
677 participants
Very low
Infection · people with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer
It is very uncertain whether skin‐sparing mastectomy changes infection compared with conventional mastectomy (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 2.04 [0.03, 142.71]
371 participants
Very low
Hemorrhage · people with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer
It is very uncertain whether skin‐sparing mastectomy changes hemorrhage compared with conventional mastectomy (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 1.23 [0.47, 3.27]
677 participants
Very low
Intervention not reported
Breast cancer stage at the time of presentation: defined as the proportion of women with breast cancer diagnosed at early stage (stage 0, I, II) Time of outcome assessment: 3 years to 20 years Method of measurement: CBE · health workers
The intervention may leads to higher breast cancer stage at the time of presentation: defined as the… (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Breast cancer stage at the time of presentation: defined as the proportion of women with breast cancer diagnosed at late stage (stage III, IV) Time of outcome assessment: 3 years to 20 years Method of measurement: CBE · health workers
The intervention may leads to lower breast cancer stage at the time of presentation: defined as the… (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Accuracy of health worker‐performed CBE Time of outcome assessment: 2 years to 20 years Method of measurement: Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value · health workers
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
CBE coverage Time of outcome assessment: 20 years Method of measurement: active surveillance · health workers
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
1 study · 1 participants
Moderate