ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2009
Screening in the dark: ethical considerations of providing screening tests to individuals when evidence is insufficient to support screening populations.
Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Therapeutic Options in Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia: A Narrative Review and Clinical Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- The promise of public health ethics for precision medicine: the case of newborn preventive genomic sequencing.Human genetics · 2022Review
- Long-term renal function in living kidney donors with simple renal cysts: A retrospective cohort study.Clinical transplantation · 2020Article
- Variations in screening and management practices for subsequent asymptomatic meningiomas in childhood, adolescent and young adult cancer survivors.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2020Article
- Patient autonomy and choice in healthcare: self-testing devices as a case in point.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
During the past decade, screening tests using computed tomography (CT) have disseminated into practice and been marketed to patients despite neither conclusive evidence nor professional agreement about their efficacy and cost-effectiveness at the population level. This phenomenon raises questions about physicians' professional roles and responsibilities within the setting of medical innovation, as well as the appropriate scope of patient autonomy and access to unproven screening technology. This article explores how physicians ought to respond when new screening examinations that lack conclusive evidence of overall population benefit emerge in the marketplace and are requested by individual patients. To this end, the article considers the nature of evidence and how it influences decision-making for screening at both the public policy and individual patient levels. We distinguish medical and ethical differences between screening recommended for a population and screening considered on an individual patient basis. Finally, we discuss specific cases to explore how evidence, patient risk factors and preferences, and physician judgment ought to balance when making individual patient screening decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.