- Jul 2018
-
europepmc.org europepmc.org
-
On 2015 Jul 13, CREBP Journal Club commented:
This study concluded that well conducted ecological and cohort studies in multiple settings were the most appropriate study design to quantify and monitor overdiagnosis in cancer screening programs. Establishment of a team of multinational, unbiased researchers working on internationally agreed standards for ecological and cohort studies was recommended.
The journal club agreed that cohort studies, when conducted in a methodologically sound manner, had a high potential for accurately estimating and monitoring overdiagnosis over time by providing a more “real world” view of overdiagnosis. However, we did not quite agree that it was the best approach as RCTs are known to have the least bias and a high strength of evidence compared to cohort and ecological studies. As the authors of this study have highlighted, we agree that results of the RCTs may lack generalizability due to limited external validity. Therefore we suggest that estimates from both these study designs should be used in conjunction to provide a more accurate as well as generalizable estimate of overdiagnosis in cancer screening programmes.
This review is unique in being the first study which systematically reviews different study methodologies that have been used to estimate overdiagnosis in cancer screening. Thus, we suggest that this may provide the background upon which similar studies could be conducted to estimate overdiagnosis occurring in other chronic disease screening programmes as well.
See CREBP Journal Club for more information
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY. -
On 2015 Feb 08, Arnaud Chiolero MD PhD commented:
A very useful review. Look also to papers by Etzioni to have another perspective on the quantification of overdiagnosis (Ann Inter Med 2013).
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.
-
- Feb 2018
-
europepmc.org europepmc.org
-
On 2015 Feb 08, Arnaud Chiolero MD PhD commented:
A very useful review. Look also to papers by Etzioni to have another perspective on the quantification of overdiagnosis (Ann Inter Med 2013).
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY. -
On 2015 Jul 13, CREBP Journal Club commented:
This study concluded that well conducted ecological and cohort studies in multiple settings were the most appropriate study design to quantify and monitor overdiagnosis in cancer screening programs. Establishment of a team of multinational, unbiased researchers working on internationally agreed standards for ecological and cohort studies was recommended.
The journal club agreed that cohort studies, when conducted in a methodologically sound manner, had a high potential for accurately estimating and monitoring overdiagnosis over time by providing a more “real world” view of overdiagnosis. However, we did not quite agree that it was the best approach as RCTs are known to have the least bias and a high strength of evidence compared to cohort and ecological studies. As the authors of this study have highlighted, we agree that results of the RCTs may lack generalizability due to limited external validity. Therefore we suggest that estimates from both these study designs should be used in conjunction to provide a more accurate as well as generalizable estimate of overdiagnosis in cancer screening programmes.
This review is unique in being the first study which systematically reviews different study methodologies that have been used to estimate overdiagnosis in cancer screening. Thus, we suggest that this may provide the background upon which similar studies could be conducted to estimate overdiagnosis occurring in other chronic disease screening programmes as well.
See CREBP Journal Club for more information
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.
-