S Herber1, M Rehbein, T Tepas, C Pohl, P Esser. 1. Klinik für Augenheilkunde, St.-Elisabeth-Krankenhaus Köln Hohenlind, Köln, Deutschland. praxisherber@web.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Iridology is a noninvasive method from the field of complementary medicine that is said to detect diseases by looking for abnormalities of pigmentation and structure in the iris. Colorectal cancer is an ideal opportunity for screening programs because of its long period of development. Our study investigated the applicability of iridology as an alternative screening method for colorectal cancer. METHODS: Digital color slides were obtained from both eyes of 29 patients with histologically diagnosed colorectal cancer and from 29 age- and gender-matched healthy control subjects. The slides were presented in random order to acknowledged iridologists without knowledge of the number of patients in the two categories. RESULTS: The iridologists correctly detected 51.7% and 53.4%, respectively, of the patients' slides; therefore, the likelihood was statistically no better than chance. Sensitivity was, respectively, 58.6% and 55.2%, and specificity was 44.8% and 51.7%. CONCLUSION: Iridology had no validity as a diagnostic tool for detecting colorectal cancer in this study.
BACKGROUND: Iridology is a noninvasive method from the field of complementary medicine that is said to detect diseases by looking for abnormalities of pigmentation and structure in the iris. Colorectal cancer is an ideal opportunity for screening programs because of its long period of development. Our study investigated the applicability of iridology as an alternative screening method for colorectal cancer. METHODS: Digital color slides were obtained from both eyes of 29 patients with histologically diagnosed colorectal cancer and from 29 age- and gender-matched healthy control subjects. The slides were presented in random order to acknowledged iridologists without knowledge of the number of patients in the two categories. RESULTS: The iridologists correctly detected 51.7% and 53.4%, respectively, of the patients' slides; therefore, the likelihood was statistically no better than chance. Sensitivity was, respectively, 58.6% and 55.2%, and specificity was 44.8% and 51.7%. CONCLUSION: Iridology had no validity as a diagnostic tool for detecting colorectal cancer in this study.
Authors: J Mezger; U Löcherbach; B Hagenhoff; O Funken; U Gallkowski; C Hahn; U Pfeifer; T Sauerbruch Journal: Dtsch Med Wochenschr Date: 1997-05-30 Impact factor: 0.628
Authors: G R Howe; E Benito; R Castelleto; J Cornée; J Estève; R P Gallagher; J M Iscovich; J Deng-ao; R Kaaks; G A Kune Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1992-12-16 Impact factor: 13.506