Article Text
Electronic pages
Primary care physicians surveyed in this study mistakenly interpreted improved survival and increased detection with screening as evidence that screening saves lives
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Commentary on: OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
Context
Primary care physicians need to interpret results of randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of screening tests, but there is no evidence that they interpret screening-related statistics correctly.
Methods
A National sample of 412 US primary care physicians was asked in 2010 and 2011 to say in which of two scenarios a cancer screening test saved lives: (A) a screening test for cancer X is associated with an improved 5-year survival (if screened: 99% survival, if not screened: 68%) and more detection of stage 1 cancers (if screened: 54% detection, if not screened: 36% detection); (B) a screening …
Footnotes
-
Competing interests None.