Linked Life Data

18039986

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/18039986

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
21
pubmed:dateCreated
2007-11-27
pubmed:abstractText
Last year, the New England Journal of Medicine ran a lead article reporting that patients with lung cancer had a 10-year survival approaching 90% if detected by screening spiral computed tomography. The publication garnered considerable media attention, and some felt that its findings provided a persuasive case for the immediate initiation of lung cancer screening. We strongly disagree. In this article, we highlight 4 reasons why the publication does not make a persuasive case for screening: the study had no control group, it lacked an unbiased outcome measure, it did not consider what is already known about this topic from previous studies, and it did not address the harms of screening. We conclude with 2 fundamental principles that physicians should remember when thinking about screening: (1) survival is always prolonged by early detection, even when deaths are not delayed nor any lives saved, and (2) randomized trials are the only way to reliably determine whether screening does more good than harm.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
AIM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Nov
pubmed:issn
0003-9926
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:day
26
pubmed:volume
167
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
2289-95
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2007
pubmed:articleTitle
Overstating the evidence for lung cancer screening: the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP) study.
pubmed:affiliation
VA Outcomes Group, White River Junction VA Medical Center, 215 N Main St, VA Outcomes Group, 11B, White River Junction, VT 05009, USA.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article