You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 18, Issue 1
  • Primary care physicians surveyed in this study mistakenly interpreted improved survival and increased detection with screening as evidence that screening saves lives

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Electronic pages
Primary care physicians surveyed in this study mistakenly interpreted improved survival and increased detection with screening as evidence that screening saves lives
  1. Alfredo Morabia
  1. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to : Alfredo Morabia
    Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 West 168th Street, Room 736, New York, NY 10032, USA; am52{at}columbia.edu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2012-100721

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Commentary on: Wegwarth O, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, et al. Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 340– 9.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 …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Copyright information:

    Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions