Watching football matches and the risk of acute myocardial infarction

women would not be included in the acceptance rate that Braillon mentions. Another thing to consider is that the eligible population of the French programme are all women aged 50–74 years, while we considered only women aged 50–69 years, where mammography use tends to be higher. These issues are not likely to explain all the difference but may be part of it. Although our study had a cross-sectional design, we used a recall period of 3 years. The 3-year gap of time, which was in fact included in the current recommended screening interval, was chosen given the question asked in the survey. Thus, our prevalence estimates are higher than those calculated with the programme’s invitation frequency, which usually is of 2 years. However, we would argue that this is not likely to affect different types of programmes (organized and opportunistic) in a different manner, so the effect of organized screening would not be strongly affected. The main objective of our study was not to give precise estimates of the prevalence of screening in Europe—as we think there are better tools to do it—but whether the presence of an organized programme influences the prevalence of screening and the magnitude of socio-economic inequalities. We really agree on the need for an observatory that provides valid and comparable data on the state of cancer in Europe; however, studies that use survey data to compare socio-economic inequalities in countries with different types of screening approaches can be useful to understand the benefits of organized screening.