MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2103520759

Preventive health care, 2001 update: should women be routinely taught breast self-examination to screen for breast cancer?

2001· article· en· W2103520759 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Nancy N. Baxter

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBreast cancerCINAHLRandomized controlled trialMEDLINECochrane LibraryBreast self-examinationFamily medicineHealth careObservational studySystematic reviewBreast cancer screeningPhysical examinationCohort studyCancerMammographyGynecologySurgeryNursingInternal medicinePsychological intervention
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence relating to the effectiveness of breast self-examination (BSE) to screen for breast cancer and to provide recommendations for routine teaching of BSE to women in various age groups as part of a periodic health examination. OPTIONS: Routine teaching of BSE to women. EVIDENCE: The electronic databases MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, CINAHL, Health-STAR, Current Contents and the Cochrane Library were searched for abstracts and full reports of studies published from 1966 to October 2000 that evaluated the effectiveness of BSE in reducing breast cancer mortality. In addition, references of key papers were searched and experts consulted to ensure that all relevant articles had been identified. OUTCOMES: Prevention of death from breast cancer was viewed as the most important outcome; other outcomes examined included the stage of cancer detected, the rate of benign biopsy results, the number of patient visits for breast complaints, and psychological benefits and harms. VALUES: The recommendations of this report reflect the commitment of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to provide a structured, evidence-based appraisal of whether a manoeuvre should be included in the periodic health examination. BENEFITS, HARMS AND COSTS: Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among Canadian women, accounting for 30% of all new cancer cases each year. In 2000 an estimated 19,200 Canadian women would have been diagnosed with breast cancer, and 5500 would have died from the disease. To date, 2 large randomized controlled trials, a quasi-randomized trial, a large cohort study and several case-control studies have failed to show a benefit for regular performance of BSE or BSE education, compared with no BSE. In contrast, there is good evidence of harm from BSE instruction, including significant increases in the number of physician visits for the evaluation of benign breast lesions and significantly higher rates of benign biopsy results. RECOMMENDATIONS: Women aged 40-49 years: Because there is fair evidence of no benefit, and good evidence of harm, there is fair evidence to recommend that routine teaching of BSE be excluded from the periodic health examination of women in this age group (grade D recommendation). Women aged 50-69 years: Because there is fair evidence of no benefit, and good evidence of harm, there is fair evidence to recommend that routine teaching of BSE be excluded from the periodic health examination of women in this age group (grade D recommendation). The lack of sufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the manoeuvre in women younger than 40 years and those 70 years and older precludes making recommendations for teaching BSE to women in these age groups. The following issues may be important to consider: Women younger than 40 years: There is little evidence for effectiveness specific to this group. Because the incidence of breast cancer is low in this age group, the risk of net harm from BSE and BSE instruction is even more likely. Women 70 years and older: Although the incidence of breast cancer is high in this group, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation concerning BSE for women 70 years and older. Important note: Although the evidence indicates no benefit from routine instruction, some women will ask to be taught BSE. The potential benefits and harms should be discussed with the woman, and if BSE is taught, care must be taken to ensure she performs BSE in a proficient manner. VALIDATION: The findings of this analysis were reviewed through an iterative process by the members of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. The task force sent the final review and recommendations to 4 independent experts, and their feedback was incorporated in the final draft of the manuscript. SPONSORS: The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is funded through a partnership between the Provincial and Territorial Ministries of Health and Health Canada.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,303
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,602

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,041
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0070,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0030,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,065
Tête enseignante GPT0,336
Écart entre enseignants0,271 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations219
Publié2001
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMedMême sujetGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningTravaux en français237 207