Failure of researchers, reviewers, editors, and the media to understand flaws in cancer screening studies: application to an article in Cancer
- PMID: 24925345
- DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28795
Failure of researchers, reviewers, editors, and the media to understand flaws in cancer screening studies: application to an article in Cancer
Abstract
Observational studies present inferential challenges. These challenges are acute in cancer screening studies, in which lead-time and length biases are ever present. These biases can make any study worthless. Moreover, a flawed study's impact on the public can be deleterious when its conclusions are publicized by a naïve media. Flawed studies can also make the public learn to be wary of any article or reports of articles claiming to be scientific. Here, the author addresses these and related issues in the context of a study published in Cancer.
Keywords: cancer screening; efficacy of screening mammography by age; lead-time bias; length bias; observational studies; randomized screening trials; screening mammography.
© 2014 American Cancer Society.
Comment in
-
Breast cancer screening: time for rational discourse.Cancer. 2014 Sep 15;120(18):2800-2. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28788. Epub 2014 Jun 12. Cancer. 2014. PMID: 24925095 No abstract available.
-
The 20-year effort to reduce access to mammography screening: historical facts dispute a commentary in Cancer.Cancer. 2014 Sep 15;120(18):2792-9. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28791. Epub 2014 Jun 12. Cancer. 2014. PMID: 24925233
Comment on
-
A failure analysis of invasive breast cancer: most deaths from disease occur in women not regularly screened.Cancer. 2014 Sep 15;120(18):2839-46. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28199. Epub 2013 Sep 9. Cancer. 2014. PMID: 24018987
Similar articles
-
The 20-year effort to reduce access to mammography screening: historical facts dispute a commentary in Cancer.Cancer. 2014 Sep 15;120(18):2792-9. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28791. Epub 2014 Jun 12. Cancer. 2014. PMID: 24925233
-
Breast cancer screening: time for rational discourse.Cancer. 2014 Sep 15;120(18):2800-2. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28788. Epub 2014 Jun 12. Cancer. 2014. PMID: 24925095 No abstract available.
-
The impact of advances in treatment on the efficacy of mammography screening.Prev Med. 2011 Sep;53(3):103-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.06.012. Epub 2011 Jun 23. Prev Med. 2011. PMID: 21722664
-
Mammographic screening for breast cancer: 2010.Mt Sinai J Med. 2010 Jul-Aug;77(4):398-404. doi: 10.1002/msj.20194. Mt Sinai J Med. 2010. PMID: 20687187 Review.
-
Health system barriers and enablers to early access to breast cancer screening, detection, and diagnosis: a global analysis applied to the MENA region.Public Health. 2017 Nov;152:58-74. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2017.07.020. Epub 2017 Aug 29. Public Health. 2017. PMID: 28843410 Review.
Cited by
-
Prediagnostic Prostate-specific Antigen Testing and Clinical Characteristics in Men with Lethal Prostate Cancer.Eur Urol Open Sci. 2024 Mar 4;62:61-67. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.02.011. eCollection 2024 Apr. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2024. PMID: 38468863 Free PMC article.
-
How Did CNBSS Influence Guidelines for So Long and What Can That Teach Us?Curr Oncol. 2022 May 30;29(6):3922-3932. doi: 10.3390/curroncol29060313. Curr Oncol. 2022. PMID: 35735422 Free PMC article.
-
Lead-time bias in esophageal cancer screening in high-risk areas in China.Chin J Cancer Res. 2020 Aug;32(4):467-475. doi: 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2020.04.04. Chin J Cancer Res. 2020. PMID: 32963459 Free PMC article.
-
Quality of screening mammography.Can Fam Physician. 2019 Nov;65(11):769-771. Can Fam Physician. 2019. PMID: 31722898 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
[Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey].Ophthalmologe. 2017 Mar;114(3):215-223. doi: 10.1007/s00347-017-0471-5. Ophthalmologe. 2017. PMID: 28236001 Review. German.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
