Literature DB >> 22459203

Generalisability of the results of the Dutch-Belgian randomised controlled lung cancer CT screening trial (NELSON): does self-selection play a role?

C M van der Aalst1, C A van Iersel, R J van Klaveren, F J M Frenken, J Fracheboud, S J Otto, P A de Jong, M Oudkerk, H J de Koning.   

Abstract

The degree of self-selection in the Dutch-Belgian randomised controlled lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) was determined to assess the generalisability of the study results. 335,441 (mainly) men born in 1928-1953 received a questionnaire. Of the respondents (32%), eligible subjects were invited to participate (19%). Fifty-five percent gave informed consent and was randomised. Background characteristics were compared between male respondents on the first questionnaire (n = 92,802), eligible subjects among them (n = 18,570) and those randomised (n = 10,627) and Statistics Netherlands 2002-2005 (SN) (n = 5289) or GLOBE study-data (Dutch cohort) (n = 696). Initial respondents were less likely to be highly educated (OR(adj) = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.74-0.96) and comprised of significantly less current smokers (OR(adj) = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.61-0.69) compared to the general population. These current smokers smoked more heavily (OR(adj) = 1.23; 95% CI: 1.10-1.37), but for a shorter time-period (respondents: 31, SN: 42 years, p < 0.001). Age, general health, BMI, alcohol use and cancer prevalence were comparable. The randomised population was younger (Age 50-65) (randomised subjects: 85.3%, SN: 72% (p < 0.01)) comprised of more heavy current smokers (OR = 2.08; 95% CI: 1.75-2.44), that smoked for a shorter period of time (randomised subjects: 37, SN_selection: 42 years (p < 0.001)). Both the respondents (32%) of the first questionnaire as well as the randomised population of the NELSON trial appeared to differ slightly on smoking characteristics, but the differences were limited and probably balance each other. Results of the NELSON trial will be roughly applicable to the Dutch and probably other populations that fulfil our selection criteria.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22459203     DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.02.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lung Cancer        ISSN: 0169-5002            Impact factor:   5.705


  6 in total

Review 1.  Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a review of current status.

Authors:  Henry M Marshall; Rayleen V Bowman; Ian A Yang; Kwun M Fong; Christine D Berg
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 2.  [Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey].

Authors:  W A Golder
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 3.  [Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey].

Authors:  W A Golder
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.372

4.  A Framework for Systematic Assessment of Clinical Trial Population Representativeness Using Electronic Health Records Data.

Authors:  Yingcheng Sun; Alex Butler; Ibrahim Diallo; Jae Hyun Kim; Casey Ta; James R Rogers; Hao Liu; Chunhua Weng
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2021-09-08       Impact factor: 2.762

Review 5.  An update on CT screening for lung cancer: the first major targeted cancer screening programme.

Authors:  David R Baldwin; Matthew E J Callister
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  What is the balance of benefits and harms for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography?

Authors:  Stephen H Bradley; Bethany Shinkins; Martyn Pt Kennedy
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 5.344

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.