Literature DB >> 6791811

The value of screening.

R R Love, A E Camilli.   

Abstract

While it seems obvious that diagnosis of cancers by screening early in their asymptomatic stages should result in improved outcomes, for most cancers proof in clinical practice is elusive. Various characteristics of cancers themselves, screening tests, and screening programs, are critical in estimating the potential value of particular screening efforts. Cancer favorable for screening are those with a high prevalence in the patients screening (high-risk patients), a long detectable preclinical phase, and conditions in which early treatment beneficially alters the natural history. A good screening test is one with high sensitivity and specificity, as the test is commonly performed and interpreted, and minimal financial and other costs or risks. Favorable evaluation of a screening program includes demonstrated reduction in morbidity and mortality, preferably in a randomized controlled trial. Interpretation of experimental and nonexperimental results of screening programs in complex. Evaluation of the multidimensional costs of screening depends on the value system of the observer: patient, physician, or public health official. Comparison of costs and benefits with those of other activities is helpful in decision making and in assessing the value of screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1981        PMID: 6791811     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19810715)48:1+<489::aid-cncr2820481309>3.0.co;2-f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  7 in total

1.  Screening for carcinoma of the prostate.

Authors:  D P Sandhu; C P Chilton; K W Munson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-06-16

2.  Quantifying the value of markers in screening programmes.

Authors:  Søren Dinesen Østergaard; Peter Thisted Dinesen; Leslie Foldager
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-02-12       Impact factor: 8.082

3.  Experiences of patients with false positive results from colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  D Mant; R Fitzpatrick; A Hogg; A Fuller; A Farmer; J Verne; J Northover
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Randomized mammographic screening for breast cancer in Stockholm. Design, first round results and comparisons.

Authors:  J Frisell; U Glas; L Hellström; A Somell
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Acceptability of opportunistic screening for occult gastrointestinal blood loss.

Authors:  F D Hobbs; R C Cherry; J W Fielding; L Pike; R Holder
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-02-22

Review 6.  Progress and problems in screening for carcinoma of the prostate.

Authors:  G W Chodak; H W Schoenberg
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1989 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Sensitivity and specificity of mass screening for gastric cancer using the measurment of serum pepsinogens.

Authors:  Y Hattori; H Tashiro; T Kawamoto; Y Kodama
Journal:  Jpn J Cancer Res       Date:  1995-12
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.