Literature DB >> 8653643

Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 2. Ten potential pitfalls in determining the clinical significance of benefits.

K G Marshall1.   

Abstract

A preventive program is only of value if it has proven benefits that outweigh any adverse consequences; unfortunately, determination of the clinical significance of reported benefits is not always easy. The first article of this series discussed the confusion caused by reporting results in terms of relative rates. In this article, 10 other pitfalls that may lead to misunderstanding of the degree of benefits are reviewed. These pitfalls are: the type of outcome chosen (surrogate v. clinically significant), the risk level in the population screened, the interval between the intervention and the benefit, the duration of intervention required to achieve the benefit, the overshadowing of one benefit by another, the application of a benefit for one variant of a disease to another variant, lower benefits in community settings than in clinical trials, publication bias, preferential citation of studies showing beneficial effects and "false-negative" results of studies. These pitfalls are illustrated through examples from the current medical literature.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8653643      PMCID: PMC1487736     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  51 in total

1.  Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy.

Authors:  W C Black; H G Welch
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-04-29       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Past and recent physical activity and risk of hip fracture.

Authors:  S B Jaglal; N Kreiger; G Darlington
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1993-07-15       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  The diabetes control and complications trial. Implications for policy and practice.

Authors:  R D Lasker
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-09-30       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials.

Authors:  L Nyström; L E Rutqvist; S Wall; A Lindgren; M Lindqvist; S Rydén; I Andersson; N Bjurstam; G Fagerberg; J Frisell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-04-17       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  High 10-year survival rate in patients with early, untreated prostatic cancer.

Authors:  J E Johansson; H O Adami; S O Andersson; R Bergström; L Holmberg; U B Krusemo
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992 Apr 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Prospective, conservative management of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  G W Jones
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1992-07-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Detection of organ-confined prostate cancer is increased through prostate-specific antigen-based screening.

Authors:  W J Catalona; D S Smith; T L Ratliff; J W Basler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-08-25       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  The effect of long-term intensified insulin treatment on the development of microvascular complications of diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  P Reichard; B Y Nilsson; U Rosenqvist
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-07-29       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  The association of changes in physical-activity level and other lifestyle characteristics with mortality among men.

Authors:  R S Paffenbarger; R T Hyde; A L Wing; I M Lee; D L Jung; J B Kampert
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-02-25       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Cholesterol lowering and mortality: the importance of considering initial level of risk.

Authors:  G D Smith; F Song; T A Sheldon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-05-22
View more
  7 in total

1.  Screening and the family physician.

Authors:  Nicholas Pimlott
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 2.  Do the benefits outweigh the side effects of colorectal cancer surveillance? A systematic review.

Authors:  Knut Magne Augestad; Johnie Rose; Benjamin Crawshaw; Gregory Cooper; Conor Delaney
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2014-05-15

Review 3.  The adrenal incidentaloma: disease of modern technology and public health problem.

Authors:  D C Aron
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 6.514

4.  How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey.

Authors:  Deborah A Marshall; F Reed Johnson; Nathalie A Kulin; Semra Ozdemir; Judith M E Walsh; John K Marshall; Stephanie Van Bebber; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  The utility of surveillance CT scans in a cohort of survivors of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Jorja Braden; Prunella Blinman; Ashanya Malalasekera; Kim Kerin-Ayres; Jarrah Spencer; Natalie Southi; Janette L Vardy
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 4.442

6.  A prospective analysis of false positive events in a National Colon Cancer Surveillance Program.

Authors:  Knut Magne Augestad; Jan Norum; Johnie Rose; Rolv-Ole Lindsetmo
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Clinical Factors Associated with Asymptomatic Women Having Inconclusive Screening Mammography Results: Experiences from a Single Medical Center in Taiwan.

Authors:  Chun-Li Wang; Pi-Shan Hsu; Chia-Yen Lin; Shun-Fa Yang
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 3.390

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.