Literature DB >> 9685274

Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening.

C M Rembold1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To develop the number needed to screen, a new statistic to overcome inappropriate national strategies for disease screening. Number needed to screen is defined as the number of people that need to be screened for a given duration to prevent one death or adverse event.
DESIGN: Number needed to screen was calculated from clinical trials that directly measured the effect of a screening strategy. From clinical trials that measured treatment benefit, the number needed to screen was estimated as the number needed to treat from the trial divided by the prevalence of heretofore unrecognised or untreated disease. Directly calculated values were then compared with estimate number needed to screen values.
SUBJECTS: Standard literature review.
RESULTS: For prevention of total mortality the most effective screening test was a lipid profile. The estimated number needed to screen for dyslipidaemia (low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration >4.14 mmol/1) was 418 if detection was followed by pravastatin treatment for 5 years. This indicates that one death in 5 years could be prevented by screening 418 people. The estimated number needed to screen for hypertension was between 274 and 1307 for 5 years (for 10 mm Hg and 6 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure reduction respectively) if detection was followed by treatment based on a diuretic. Screening with haemoccult testing and mammography significantly decreased cancer specific, but not total, mortality. The number needed to screen for haemoccult screening to prevent a death from colon cancer was 1374 for 5 years, and the number needed to screen for mammography to prevent a death from breast cancer was 2451 for 5 years for women aged 50-59.
CONCLUSION: These data allow the clinician to prioritise screening strategies. Of the screening strategies evaluated, screening for, and treatment of, dyslipidaemia and hypertension seem to produce the largest clinical benefit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9685274      PMCID: PMC28622          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.317.7154.307

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  29 in total

1.  Using numerical results from systematic reviews in clinical practice.

Authors:  H J McQuay; R A Moore
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-05-01       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Treatment of mild hypertension: results of a ten-year intervention trial.

Authors:  W M Smith
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  1977-05       Impact factor: 17.367

3.  A co-operative trial in the primary prevention of ischaemic heart disease using clofibrate. Report from the Committee of Principal Investigators.

Authors: 
Journal:  Br Heart J       Date:  1978-10

4.  Mortality and morbidity results from the European Working Party on High Blood Pressure in the Elderly trial.

Authors:  A Amery; W Birkenhäger; P Brixko; C Bulpitt; D Clement; M Deruyttere; A De Schaepdryver; C Dollery; R Fagard; F Forette
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-06-15       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  MRC trial of treatment of mild hypertension: principal results. Medical Research Council Working Party.

Authors: 
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1985-07-13

6.  Five-year findings of the hypertension detection and follow-up program. I. Reduction in mortality of persons with high blood pressure, including mild hypertension. Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1979-12-07       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial results. I. Reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1984-01-20       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Treatment of mild hypertension: a five year controlled drug trial. The Oslo study.

Authors:  A Helgeland
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1980-11       Impact factor: 4.965

9.  Multiple risk factor intervention trial. Risk factor changes and mortality results. Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1982-09-24       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  The Australian therapeutic trial in mild hypertension. Report by the Management Committee.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1980-06-14       Impact factor: 202.731

View more
  84 in total

1.  Disease impact number and population impact number: population perspectives to measures of risk and benefit.

Authors:  R F Heller; A J Dobson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-10-14

Review 2.  Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening and management of developmental dysplasia of the hip in newborns.

Authors:  H Patel
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-06-12       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences.

Authors:  A Edwards; G Elwyn
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

4.  Newborn screening programmes in Europe; arguments and efforts regarding harmonization. Part 2. From screening laboratory results to treatment, follow-up and quality assurance.

Authors:  Peter Burgard; Kathrin Rupp; Martin Lindner; Gisela Haege; Tessel Rigter; Stephanie S Weinreich; J Gerard Loeber; Domenica Taruscio; Luciano Vittozzi; Martina C Cornel; Georg F Hoffmann
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2012-04-28       Impact factor: 4.982

Review 5.  Principles of Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 2.741

6.  Number needed to treat (or harm).

Authors:  Martin R Tramèr; Bernhard Walder
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Impact of genetic testing on complex diseases.

Authors:  M J E van Rijn; C M van Duijn; A J C Slooter
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 8.082

8.  Screening programme evaluation applied to airport security.

Authors:  Eleni Linos; Elizabeth Linos; Graham Colditz
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-12-22

9.  The aftermath of efficacy.

Authors:  Alfred O Berg
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

10.  Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms: single centre randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Jes S Lindholt; Svend Juul; Helge Fasting; Eskild W Henneberg
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-03-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.