Abolishing Mammography Screening Programs? A View From the Swiss Medical Board
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article discusses the results and implications of the recently published findings of the Swiss Medical Board Panel on the benefits and harms of mammography screening programs. The Board was established by regional ministers of public health. Two of its members, a medical ethicist and a clinical epidemiologist, prepared this report. Other members were a clinical pharmacologist, an oncologic surgeon, a nurse scientist, a lawyer, and a health economist. The Board’s members were unbiased in that they were not part of consensus-building efforts by proponents of breast cancer screening. When they undertook this task, the panel was well aware of the controversy in the last 10 to 15 years on this issue. As they examined the available evidence on the overall benefits of screening, both data supporting the value of screening mammography and data that did not, the panel had a number of concerns. Their first concern was whether the modest benefits of screening found in several trials published between 1963 and 1991 would be found in a trial conducted today. And if there are benefits, do the harms of screening outweigh any benefit? The authors discussed the findings of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study, which earlier this year published its 25-year follow-up study of patients who had regular screening mammography. The data showed that repeat mammography with subsequent biopsies led to overdiagnosis of breast cancers that would never have become clinically apparent. Cancers were detected in 484 of the 44,925 healthy women who were regularly screened. Twenty-two percent of screen-detected cancers were overdiagnosed and received needless surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and various combinations of these interventions. Another study, a Cochrane review of 10 trials involving more than 600,000 women, found no evidence for a beneficial effect of mammography screening on overall breast cancer mortality. The Board also noted a marked discrepancy between the perceptions of 50-year-old women in the United States on the benefits of screening and the most likely expected benefits. More than 70% of women in a large sample believed that mammography every 2 years starting at age 50 years reduced the risk of breast cancer deaths by at least half over a 10-year period and that at least 80 deaths would be prevented per 1000 women. However, compared with women who do not undergo screening, the most likely scenario among 50-year-old women in the United States using a relative risk reduction of 20% (accepted by most cancer experts as the expected benefit of regular screening) would be prevention of only 1 breast cancer death per 1000 patients. The Board wondered how women who overestimate the benefits of mammography can make an informed decision. In summary, the Board concluded that mammography screening does not reduce the overall death rate from the disease. The modest reduction in the mortality rate from breast cancer is offset by its harms. Overdiagnosis leads to needless biopsies and harmful treatment of women without life-threatening breast cancers. Therefore, the Board recommended that (1) Switzerland should stop introducing new mammography screening programs and phase out existing ones, and (2) all systematic screening programs should be replaced with screening information and that women make individual choices. Most Swiss and American cancer experts strongly criticized the Swiss Board’s findings and recommendations. However, the authors note that it is difficult to justify from an ethical perspective any public health program that produces more harms than benefits.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,040 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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