Article

Trade-off between benefit and harm is crucial in health screening recommendations. Part I: General principles

Department of Pediatrics, University of the Philippines Manila, Ermita, Manila, Philippines.
Journal of clinical epidemiology (Impact Factor: 5.48). 03/2011; 64(3):231-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.009
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Health screening is defined as the use of a test or a series of tests to detect unrecognized health risks or preclinical disease in apparently healthy populations to permit prevention and timely intervention. A health screening strategy consists of the sequence of a screening test, confirmatory test(s), and finally, treatment(s) for the condition detected. The potential benefits of health screening are easy to understand, but the huge potential for physical and psychological harm is less well recognized. Thus, health screening should only be recommended when five criteria are satisfied: (1) the burden of illness should be high, (2) the tests for screening and confirmation should be accurate, (3) early treatment (or prevention) must be more effective than late treatment, (4) the test(s) and treatment(s) must be safe, and (5) the cost of the screening strategy must be commensurate with potential benefit. Direct evidence from screening trials is subject to less bias. In some instances, indirect evidence may be acceptable, e.g., when the condition screened for is a risk factor for a disease rather than the disease itself.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
125 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess how often harm is quantified in randomised trials of cancer screening. Two authors independently extracted data on harms from randomised cancer screening trials. Binary outcomes were described as proportions and continuous outcomes with medians and interquartile ranges. For cancer screening previously assessed in a Cochrane review, we identified trials from their reference lists and updated the search in CENTRAL. For cancer screening not assessed in a Cochrane review, we searched CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase. Randomised trials that assessed the efficacy of cancer screening for reducing incidence of cancer, cancer specific mortality, and/or all cause mortality. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility. Two reviewers, who were blinded to the identity of the study's authors, assessed whether absolute numbers or incidence rates of outcomes related to harm were provided separately for the screening and control groups. The outcomes were false positive findings, overdiagnosis, negative psychosocial consequences, somatic complications, invasive follow-up procedures, all cause mortality, and withdrawals because of adverse events. Out of 4590 articles assessed, 198 (57 trials, 10 screening technologies) matched the inclusion criteria. False positive findings were quantified in two of 57 trials (4%, 95% confidence interval 0% to 12%), overdiagnosis in four (7%, 2% to 18%), negative psychosocial consequences in five (9%, 3% to 20%), somatic complications in 11 (19%, 10% to 32%), use of invasive follow-up procedures in 27 (47%, 34% to 61%), all cause mortality in 34 (60%, 46% to 72%), and withdrawals because of adverse effects in one trial (2%, 0% to 11%). The median percentage of space in the results section that reported harms was 12% (interquartile range 2-19%). Cancer screening trials seldom quantify the harms of screening. Of the 57 cancer screening trials examined, the most important harms of screening-overdiagnosis and false positive findings-were quantified in only 7% and 4%, respectively.
    BMJ (online) 09/2013; 347:f5334. DOI:10.1136/bmj.f5334 · 16.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To review new incidental findings detected on low-resolution CT attenuation correction (CTAC) images acquired during SPECT-CT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). To determine whether the CTAC images had diagnostic value and warrant reporting. Methods: A multi-centre study was performed in four UK Nuclear Medicine departments. CTAC images acquired as part of MPI performed using SPECT were evaluated to identify incidental findings. New findings considered to be clinically significant were evaluated further. Positive predictive value (PPV) was determined at the time of definitive diagnosis. Results: Of 1819 patients studied, 497 (27%) had a positive CTAC finding. Fifty-one (2.8%) patients had findings that were clinically significant at the time of CTAC report and had not been previously diagnosed. Only 4 (0.2%) of these were potentially detrimental to patient outcome. Conclusion: One centre had a PPV of 0% and the study suggests that these CTAC images should not be reported. Two centres with more modern equipment had low PPVs of 0% and 6%, respectively, and further research is suggested prior to drawing a conclusion. The centre with best quality CT had a PPV of 67% and the study suggests that CTAC images from this equipment should be reported. Advances in knowledge: This study is unique compared with previous studies which have reported only the potential to identify incidental findings on low-resolution CT images. This study both identifies and evaluates new clinically significant incidental findings and it demonstrates that the benefit of reporting the CTAC images depends on the type of equipment used.
    British Journal of Radiology 08/2014; 87(1042):20130701. DOI:10.1259/bjr.20130701 · 1.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose The Frailty Index (FI) is a popular operationalization of frailty. FI cut-off points have been proposed to define, regardless of age, frailty categories with increasing risk. Here, an alternative method is described that takes age into account. Subjects and methods 29,905 participants aged 50 years or more from the first wave of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. The mean follow-up for mortality was 2.4 years. Curve estimation procedures were carried out between age and a FI, and 50% Confidence Intervals (CI) for the regression mean were derived. As opposed to the usual method (FI ≤ 0.08: non-frail; FI ≥ 0.25: frail; rest: pre-frail), the alternative method defines as ‘fit for their age’ those with a FI below the lower 50% CI; ‘frail for their age’ those with a FI above the upper 50% CI; the rest as ‘average for their age’. Using both methods, the prevalence of the frailty categories and their associated mortality rates were compared for each age group. Results The best fit between age and the FI was by cubic regression (R2 = 0.174, P < 0.001). Among those in their 50s, 5% were frail by the usual method (mortality: 5%) and 14% by the alternative (mortality: 2%). Among those in their 90s, 64% were frail by the usual method (mortality: 43%) and 41% by the alternative (mortality: 48%). Conclusion The alternative method may be more sensitive in younger ages and more specific in older ages. This may have implications for population screening.
    European geriatric medicine 11/2013; 4(5):299–303. DOI:10.1016/j.eurger.2013.06.005 · 0.55 Impact Factor