Literature DB >> 11272300

Screening for cancer: evaluating the evidence.

T J Gates1.   

Abstract

Many patients expect to undergo screening tests for cancer. In evaluating screening procedures, physicians must take into account the known effects of lead time, length and screening biases, all of which can result in an overestimation of the benefits of screening. The gold standard by which a screening test is evaluated remains the prospective, randomized controlled trial, demonstrating reduced morbidity and mortality. The magnitude of benefit from screening is best expressed in terms of the number of patients needed to screen. This value ranges from approximately 500 to 1,100 for proven screening interventions. These concepts are illustrated by controversies in current screening recommendations for cancers of the cervix, lung, colon, breast and prostate, which together account for more than 50 percent of cancer deaths in the United States.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11272300

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Fam Physician        ISSN: 0002-838X            Impact factor:   3.292


  9 in total

1.  Risk factors of developing interval early gastric cancer after negative endoscopy.

Authors:  Young Sin Cho; Il-Kwun Chung; Ji Hyun Kim; Yunho Jung; Tae Hoon Lee; Sang-Heum Park; Sun-Joo Kim
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Using focus groups to adapt ethnically appropriate, information-seeking and recruitment messages for a prostate cancer screening program for men at high risk.

Authors:  Charlene J Bryan; Lindsay Wetmore-Arkader; Tammy Calvano; Janet A Deatrick; Veda N Giri; Deborah Watkins Bruner
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.798

3.  Population-based service mammography screening: the Icelandic experience.

Authors:  Kristjan Sigurdsson; Elínborg Jóna Olafsdóttir
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)       Date:  2013-05-09

Review 4.  Diagnosis and management of high risk group for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Hyuk Yoon; Nayoung Kim
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.519

5.  The More, the Better: Is This True in Endoscopy for Gastric Cancer Screening?

Authors:  Seong Woo Jeon
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2018-08-21

Review 6.  Advancements in Oncology with Artificial Intelligence-A Review Article.

Authors:  Nikitha Vobugari; Vikranth Raja; Udhav Sethi; Kejal Gandhi; Kishore Raja; Salim R Surani
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-06       Impact factor: 6.639

7.  A prospective cohort study to refine and validate the Panic Screening Score for identifying panic attacks associated with unexplained chest pain in the emergency department.

Authors:  Guillaume Foldes-Busque; Isabelle Denis; Julien Poitras; Richard P Fleet; Patrick Archambault; Clermont E Dionne
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Effectiveness evaluation of organized screening for esophageal cancer: a case-control study in Linzhou city, China.

Authors:  Qiong Chen; Liang Yu; Changqing Hao; Jinwu Wang; Shuzheng Liu; Meng Zhang; Shaokai Zhang; Lanwei Guo; Peiliang Quan; Patrick Germain; Yawei Zhang; Xibin Sun
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Primary Care Physicians' Action Plans for Responding to Results of Screening Tests Based on the Concept of Quaternary Prevention.

Authors:  Jong-Myon Bae; Marc Jamoulle
Journal:  J Prev Med Public Health       Date:  2016-10-13
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.