Literature DB >> 2231065

How serious are the adverse effects of screening?

W Feldman1.   

Abstract

The adverse effects of screening are not commonly studied. False-positive tests lead to discomfort, costs, and risks from additional diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. False-negative tests lead to a sense of security and delays in seeking medical help when symptoms develop. Labeling an individual with a false-positive test, or with a true-positive test for which there is no evidence that intervention makes a difference, e.g., intervention on an 80-year-old asymptomatic woman with hypercholesterolemia, can have a markedly negative impact on the quality of life. Interpreting statistical abnormalities out of clinical context, e.g., lending importance to a multiphasic blood screen showing "high" alkaline phosphatase in a teenager, leads to unnecessary costs and anxiety. The cost of screening programs that may not have been shown to do more good than harm is already having an impact on the resources available to diagnose and treatment symptomatic persons. Premature implementation of unproved screening programs will continue to decrease physician and public confidence in prevention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2231065     DOI: 10.1007/bf02600842

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  15 in total

1.  The need for quality assurance in mammography.

Authors:  D F Sienko; J R Osuch; J F Camburn
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1989-04-06       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  The tyranny of health promotion.

Authors:  M H Becker
Journal:  Public Health Rev       Date:  1986

3.  Sickle cell "nondisease". A potentially serious public health problem.

Authors:  M L Hampton; J Anderson; B S Lavizzo; A B Bergmen
Journal:  Am J Dis Child       Date:  1974-07

4.  Occult-blood screening for colorectal carcinoma: the yield and the costs.

Authors:  J W Frank
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1985 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.043

5.  A sonographic screening method for Down syndrome.

Authors:  C Lockwood; B Benacerraf; A Krinsky; K Blakemore; K Belanger; M Mahoney; J Hobbins
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Quality of controlled clinical trials. The case of imaging ultrasound in obstetrics: a review.

Authors:  S B Thacker
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1985-05

7.  The medicalization of normal variants: the case of mitral valve prolapse.

Authors:  T E Quill; M Lipkin; P Greenland
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1988 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Parental response to repeat testing of infants with 'false-positive' results in a newborn screening program.

Authors:  J R Sorenson; H L Levy; T W Mangione; S J Sepe
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  1984-02       Impact factor: 7.124

9.  Occult-blood screening for colorectal carcinoma: the risks.

Authors:  J W Frank
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1985 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 10.  Labelling in hypertension: a review of the behavioural and psychological consequences.

Authors:  L A Macdonald; D L Sackett; R B Haynes; D W Taylor
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1984
View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Estimating the prevalence of early childhood serious emotional/behavioral disorders: challenges and recommendations.

Authors:  Cheryl Boydell Brauner; Cheryll Bowers Stephens
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.792

2.  Should we ask our Children about Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll?: Potentially Harmful Effects of Asking Questions About Risky Behaviors.

Authors:  Gavan J Fitzsimons; Sarah G Moore
Journal:  J Consum Psychol       Date:  2008-04-01

3.  Impact of diastolic and systolic blood pressure on mortality: implications for the definition of "normal".

Authors:  Brent C Taylor; Timothy J Wilt; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 3. Physical, psychological and social harm.

Authors:  K G Marshall
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-07-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 5.  Economic evaluation of cholesterol-related interventions in general practice. An appraisal of the evidence.

Authors:  T van der Weijden; J A Knottnerus; A J Ament; H E Stoffers; R P Grol
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  Six month impact of false positives in an Australian infant hearing screening programme.

Authors:  Z Poulakis; M Barker; M Wake
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.791

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.