Literature DB >> 9012720

Randomization in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a review for evidence of subversion.

J C Bailar1, B MacMahon.   

Abstract

The authors assess the randomization strategy that had been used in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (NBSS). Document experts at a private investigation and security company were hired to assist in reviewing instances in which names of subjects were altered in the "allocation books" (the basic instrument used to assign, at random, participants to either the mammography or the usual-care arm). The review was restricted to records from 3 NBSS centres where women assigned to the mammography arm had a distinctly higher (not necessarily significant) number of deaths from breast cancer than those assigned to the usual-care arm, and to records from 2 centres where, for limited periods, administrative problems were reported. In most cases the underlying, original name could be identified. The document experts found no evidence of a deliberate attempt to conceal the alterations. A search of the NBSS database for the underlying and superimposed names revealed that only 1 of the women whose name had been deleted or superimpsed died of breast cancer. She was in the mammography arm. The authors' thorough review of ways in which the randomization could have been subverted failed to uncover credible evidence of it. They conclude that even if there had been acts of subversion, they could only have been few in number and, given that there was only 1 death from breast cancer in the group reviewed, the alterations could have had only a trivial effect on the study findings as reported in 1992.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9012720      PMCID: PMC1226907     

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening mammography among women aged 40-49 years at average risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  J Ringash
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-02-20       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Mammography screening among women aged 40-49 years shows no benefit.

Authors:  John Hoey
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-10-15       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  CJS debate: Is mammography useful in average-risk screening for breast cancer?

Authors:  Muriel Brackstone; Steven Latosinsky; Elizabeth Saettler; Ralph George
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.089

4.  Breast cancer screening panels continue to confuse the facts and inject their own biases.

Authors:  D B Kopans
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

5.  Mammography and the politics of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  J Wells
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-31

Review 6.  The wisdom trial is based on faulty reasoning and has major design and execution problems.

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  How Did CNBSS Influence Guidelines for So Long and What Can That Teach Us?

Authors:  Shushiela Appavoo
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 3.109

8.  Conclusions for mammography screening after 25-year follow-up of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study (CNBSS).

Authors:  S H Heywang-Köbrunner; I Schreer; A Hacker; M R Noftz; A Katalinic
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-06-04

10.  Rational and irrational issues in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Cornelia J Baines
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2011-01-11       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.