Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medicine
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2012

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Commentary

Mammographic screening debate on study design: a need to move the field forward

Author: Giske Ursin

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

The mammographic screening debate has been running for decades. The temperature of this debate is unusually high, and all participants, regardless of viewpoint, seem to have a conflict of interest. Another unusual aspect of this debate is the focus on study design, and in particular on designs that some think exceeded their usefulness decades ago. What are the questions that remain to be answered in this debate? Are there methodological issues that have not been adequately addressed? Do we have the right tools to provide up-to-date answers to how women can best protect themselves against dying from breast cancer? This commentary discusses some of the current issues.
See related Opinion articles http://​www.​biomedcentral.​com/​1741-7015/​10/​106 and http://​www.​biomedcentral.​com/​1741-7015/​10/​163
Literature
1.
Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening: The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012, 380: 1778-1786.CrossRef
2.
3.
4.
Rothman KJ, Greenland S: Modern Epidemiology. 1998, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
5.
International Agency for Research on Cancer: IARC Handbook of Cancer Prevention vol. 7: Breast Cancer Screening. 2002, Lyon, France: IARC Press
6.
Duffy SW, Cuzick J, Tabár L, Vitak B, Hsiu-His Chen T, Yen MF, Smith RA: Correcting for non-compliance bias in case-control studies to evaluate cancer screening programmes. Appl Statist. 2002, 51: 235-243. 10.1111/1467-9876.00266.
7.
Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin SF, Turashvili G, Rueda OM, Dunning MJ, Speed D, Lynch AG, Samarajiwa S, Yuan Y, Gräf S, Ha G, Haffari G, Bashashati A, Russell R, McKinney S, METABRIC Group, Langerød A, Green A, Provenzano E, Wishart G, Pinder S, Watson P, Markowetz F, Murphy L, Ellis I, Purushotham A, Børresen-Dale AL, Brenton JD, Tavaré S, et al: The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature. 2012, 486: 346-352.PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Mammographic screening debate on study design: a need to move the field forward
Author
Giske Ursin
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2012
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-164

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

BMC Medicine 1/2012 Go to the issue

Research article

Effect of a multifactorial interdisciplinary intervention on mobility-related disability in frail older people: randomised controlled trial

Research article

Prevalence and prognosis of non-specific chest pain among patients hospitalized for suspected acute coronary syndrome - a systematic literature search

Review

Comparison of efficacy between incretin-based therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Commentary

Is diagnosis enough to guide interventions in mental health? Using case formulation in clinical practice

Review

State of progress in treating cystic fibrosis respiratory disease

Commentary

Bike racing, recreational riding, impact sport and bone health