CommentaryAssessment of nationwide cancer-screening programmes
References (18)
On being the right size: a reappraisal of mammography trials in Canada and Sweden
Lancet
(1997)- et al.
Angiogenesis, assessed by platelet/endothelial cell adhesion molecule antibodies, as indicator of node metastases and survival in breast cancer
Lancet
(1992) - et al.
The impact of a breast cancer screening programme on quality-adjusted life-years
Int J Cancer
(1991) Detection and treatment of early breast cancer
(1990)- et al.
Mammographic screening does not reduce breast cancer mortality.[in Swedish]
Läkartidningen
(1999) - et al.
Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial
BMT
(1988) - et al.
Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years
CMAJ
(1992) - et al.
Randomisation by cluster and the problem of social class bias
J Epidemiol Community Health
(1989) - et al.
Screening for breast cancer: the Swedish trial
Radiology
(1981)
Cited by (78)
Screening Mammography Benefit Controversies. Sorting the Evidence
2014, Radiologic Clinics of North AmericaCitation Excerpt :The writers suggested that the observed reduction in breast cancer death rates was caused by these age differences rather than by the screening process itself. Gotzsche and Olsen were unaware that when the screening trials used cluster randomization rather than individual randomization, such small age differences were not unexpected, in some cases biased the studies against screening, and were in any case fully accounted for in analyses, leaving the conclusion of a significant mortality reduction unchanged.85–87 Screening trials and therapeutic trials are different in nature and may be different in design.
Rational drug use - As common as common sense?
2012, Medical Journal Armed Forces IndiaDoes participation to screening unintentionally influence lifestyle behaviour and thus lifestyle-related morbidity?
2010, Best Practice and Research: Clinical GastroenterologyCitation Excerpt :One characteristic of screening programmes is that relatively few people will have large benefits from screening, whereas relatively many will be exposed to small, unfavourable effects. Important is that the favourable effects (reduction in disease specific mortality, life-years gained) of screening should reasonably outweigh the harms (overdiagnosis, overtreatment, false-positive screening result e.g.) caused by screening [7]. Relatively new is the question whether cancer screening might have an impact on future health related behaviour.
Screening Results, Controversies, and Guidelines
2010, Breast Imaging: Expert Radiology SeriesMeta-analysis in medical research: Potentials and limitations
2008, Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original InvestigationsCitation Excerpt :In addition, meta-analyses addressing the same issue have reached opposite conclusions. Examples include assessments of second-line antirheumatic drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis [57,58] and, more recently, mammography for breast cancer screening [59–61]. In the following sections, potential sources of bias are discussed in some detail.
A place for fiber diffraction in the detection of breast cancer?
2006, Cancer Detection and Prevention