ArticleJournal of medical screening2024
Deaths averted: An unbiased alternative to rate ratios for measuring the performance of cancer screening programs.
Article in Journal of medical screening, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionScreening trials and meta-analyses emphasize the ratio of cancer death rates in screening and control arms. However, this measure is diluted by the inclusion of deaths from cancers that only became detectable after the end of active screening.
methodsWe review traditional analysis of cancer screening trials and show that ratio estimates are inevitably biased to the null, because follow-up (FU) must continue beyond the end of the screening period and thus includes cases only becoming detectable after screening ends. But because such cases are expected to occur in equal numbers in the two arms, calculation of the difference between the number of cancer deaths in the screening and control arms avoids this dilutional bias. This difference can be set against the number of invitations to screening; we illustrate by reanalyzing data from all trials of tomography screening of lung cancer (LC) using this measure.
resultsIn nine trials of LC screening from 2000 to 2013, a total of 94,441 high-risk patients were invited to be in screening or control groups, with high participation rates (average 95%). In the older trials comparing computed tomography to chest X-ray, 88,285 invitations averted 83 deaths (1068 per death averted (DA)). In the six more recent trials with no screening in the control group, 69,976 invitations averted 121 deaths (577 invitations per DA). DISCUSSION: Screens per DA is an undiluted measure of screening's effect and it is unperturbed by the arbitrary duration of FU. This estimate can be useful for program planning and informed consent.
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.