FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2023058066> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2023058066 endingPage "947" @default.
• W2023058066 startingPage "947" @default.
• W2023058066 abstract "Author's reply Sir—D W van Bekkum takes issue with the fact that I am from the USA and commented on UK studies. I fail to see the problem. If research evidence applied only to the country in which it was generated, patients and their doctors would have little to guide them in selecting the right care. Furthermore, I am not sure what is “widely” different between the USA and Europe. Irrespective of who pays for health care, women are afraid of breast cancer and currently depend on mammography as the only available means to detect it early. I did not discuss the NCI recommendations or the results of the other randomised trials of mammography for women aged 40–49, mainly because that territory has been well covered in the literature. It is unlikely that either he or I or others who have been thinking about these issues for a long time would be swayed in our opinions by yet another critical review of the existing trials. My point was that the issue of screening women aged 40–49 is no longer just scientific, it is also political. Van Bekkum states that the best way to decrease the risks associated with a diagnosis of breast cancer is through early detection by mammography. One of the main difficulties with screening younger women is the low prevalence of breast cancer in this age group resulting in a rather large number of women who have false-positive results and must return for further testing, including biopsies. In addition, mammography frequently detects ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a breast condition that progresses in some but not all women to invasive cancer. Because it is not possible to predict when DCIS will progress, women with DCIS are commonly treated as if they have invasive breast cancer, for example with mastectomy. Daniel Kopans is correct that discussion of the efficacy of mammographic screening seems to imply inappropriately a special significance to age 50. Age groups originally constructed for the purpose of statistical analysis have perhaps become firmly entrenched because age 50 is seen as a surrogate for menopause, when the risk of breast cancer and the sensitivity of mammography do in fact increase. What we all really want to know is: at what age should women begin mammographic screening? Unfortunately, no trial has addressed this question so far. And with the exception of the Canadian trial,1Miller AB Baines CJ To T Wall C Canadian National Breast Screening Study: In: Beast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years.Can Med Assoc J. 1992; 147: 1459-1476PubMed Google Scholar none of the available data are from randomised trials specifically designed to address the efficacy of screening women in their forties. The Canadian trial showed no benefit to screening in this age group. The benefit shown by F Alexander and colleagues' Edinburgh trial,2Alexander FE Alderson TJ Forrest APM et al.14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening.Lancet. 1999; 353: 1903-1908Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (345) Google Scholar was not apparent while the participating women were still in their forties, but only when they had reached their fifties. Kopans' major criticism centres on combining results in a systematic review and meta-analysis, yet he has not specified how such an analysis might “skew” interpretation. Indeed, the objective of a systematic review is to apply scientific principles to reviewing research. Thus, it is correct to take all available high-quality evidence into consideration when making a treatment decision or setting policy. Would Kopans prefer instead that a non-systematic method of combining data or just selected individual studies be used to inform decision making? In describing the distribution of age at diagnosis of breast cancer, I did not intend to trivialise a breast cancer diagnosis at any age. I agree that the importance of DCIS to the issue of mammographic screening in women 40–49 is not trivial, but I known of no evidence that the mortality reduction that accrued more than 10 years after the start of the Edinburgh or Swedish trials is the result of an intervention in women with DCIS. Breast screening in women aged 40–49 yearsIt is unfortunate that you chose Kay Dickersin, a public-health researcher from the USA, to discuss two important UK studies on breast screening in women aged 40–49 years. The points she makes in her June 5 commentary1 are based exclusively on the situation in the USA, which is widely different from that in Europe. She also fails to refer to the Gothenburg Breast Screening Trial in which a 45% reduction of mortality from breast cancer was observed in the study group of women aged 39–49 years compared with the control group. Full-Text PDF Breast screening in women aged 40–49 yearsWomen and their physicians continue to be misled into believing that the age of 50 has some biological significance. There are no data to support this contention. Analyses perpetuate the myth by combining data for all women aged 40–49 as if they are a uniform group, and then comparing them to the combined data for all women aged 50 and older, as if they are a uniform group. Results that actually change steadily with older age are made to appear to change abruptly at the age of 50.1 Full-Text PDF Breast screening in women aged 40–49 yearsThe issues discussed by Kay Dickersin1 and the studies by F Alexander and colleagues2 and the UK Trial of Early Detection of Breast Cancer Group3 related to the appropriateness of screening women aged 40–49 are becoming moot. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2023058066 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2023058066 creator A5050354988 @default.
• W2023058066 date "1999-09-01" @default.
• W2023058066 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2023058066 title "Breast screening in women aged 40–49 years" @default.
• W2023058066 cites W2107974963 @default.
• W2023058066 cites W2120519513 @default.
• W2023058066 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)75690-7" @default.
• W2023058066 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W2023058066 type Work @default.
• W2023058066 sameAs 2023058066 @default.
• W2023058066 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2023058066 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2023058066 hasAuthorship W2023058066A5050354988 @default.
• W2023058066 hasBestOaLocation W20230580661 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConcept C2778491387 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConcept C2780472235 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConcept C530470458 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConceptScore W2023058066C121608353 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConceptScore W2023058066C126322002 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConceptScore W2023058066C160735492 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConceptScore W2023058066C17744445 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConceptScore W2023058066C199539241 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConceptScore W2023058066C2778491387 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConceptScore W2023058066C2780472235 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConceptScore W2023058066C29456083 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConceptScore W2023058066C512399662 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConceptScore W2023058066C530470458 @default.
• W2023058066 hasConceptScore W2023058066C71924100 @default.
• W2023058066 hasIssue "9182" @default.
• W2023058066 hasLocation W20230580661 @default.
• W2023058066 hasOpenAccess W2023058066 @default.
• W2023058066 hasPrimaryLocation W20230580661 @default.
• W2023058066 hasRelatedWork W1658604602 @default.
• W2023058066 hasRelatedWork W1986262531 @default.
• W2023058066 hasRelatedWork W2035720357 @default.
• W2023058066 hasRelatedWork W2093779201 @default.
• W2023058066 hasRelatedWork W2408784478 @default.
• W2023058066 hasRelatedWork W3026273959 @default.
• W2023058066 hasRelatedWork W4312215125 @default.
• W2023058066 hasRelatedWork W4323074611 @default.
• W2023058066 hasRelatedWork W4372342001 @default.
• W2023058066 hasRelatedWork W2289580163 @default.
• W2023058066 hasVolume "354" @default.
• W2023058066 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2023058066 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2023058066 magId "2023058066" @default.
• W2023058066 workType "article" @default.