Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11678550 below:

Screening and the number needed to treat

Affiliations

• ¹ Department of Public Health and General Practice, Christchurch School of Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. ann.richardson@chmeds.ac.nz

• PMID: 11678550
• DOI: 10.1136/jms.8.3.125

Item in Clipboard

A Richardson. J Med Screen. 2001.

• ¹ Department of Public Health and General Practice, Christchurch School of Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. ann.richardson@chmeds.ac.nz

• PMID: 11678550
• DOI: 10.1136/jms.8.3.125

Item in Clipboard

Objective: To develop a measure analogous to the "number needed to treat" (NNT), which would be appropriate for population based screening programmes.

Methods: A previous measure analogous to the NNT, the "number needed to screen" (NNS), calculated as the reciprocal of the absolute risk reduction, does not account for participation and selection effects in screening trials. A new measure is proposed; the NNBS (number needed to be screened) derived from the NNT adjusted for participation in screening and for selection effects associated with participation in screening. The NNBS for breast cancer screening and colorectal cancer screening are calculated, based on the results of randomised controlled trials.

Results: In the first 8 years from the start of each screening programme, the NNS to prevent one death from breast cancer was 781 women (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 550 to 1560). The NNS to prevent one death from colorectal cancer was 1250 people (95% CI 690 to 9090). The NNBS was 23% lower than the NNS for breast cancer screening (NNBS=601), and 45% lower than the NNS for colorectal cancer (NNBS=688).

Conclusions: The NNT calculations may make population based screening programmes seem expensive and inefficient compared with other interventions. A new measure, the number needed to be screened (NNBS), which takes into account the participation rate adjusted for selection, may be more appropriate, especially when comparing screening programmes with disparate participation rates, or when comparing screening with other interventions.

PubMed Disclaimer

• [Number needed to be screened in a study: a novel measure for disease screening effect].

  Tong F, Chen K, He HQ. Tong F, et al. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2006 Aug;27(8):725-7. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2006. PMID: 17172118 Chinese.

• ['Number needed to screen': a tool for assessment of prevention programs].

  Boomsma LJ, van Lidth de Jeude CP. Boomsma LJ, et al. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2000 Dec 2;144(49):2345-8. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2000. PMID: 11129969 Review. Dutch.

• Mammography screening: a new estimate of number needed to screen to prevent one breast cancer death.

  Hendrick RE, Helvie MA. Hendrick RE, et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Mar;198(3):723-8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.7146. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012. PMID: 22358016

• [Too early to recommend universal screening for colorectal cancer].

  Ekelund G, Janzon L. Ekelund G, et al. Lakartidningen. 2003 Sep 18;100(38):2922-6. Lakartidningen. 2003. PMID: 14558210 Review. Swedish.

• Sex-specific prevalence of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and colorectal cancer in individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy.

  Ferlitsch M, Reinhart K, Pramhas S, Wiener C, Gal O, Bannert C, Hassler M, Kozbial K, Dunkler D, Trauner M, Weiss W. Ferlitsch M, et al. JAMA. 2011 Sep 28;306(12):1352-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1362. JAMA. 2011. PMID: 21954479

• The Number Needed to Treat: 25 Years of Trials and Tribulations in Clinical Research.

  Suissa S. Suissa S. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2015 Jul 30;6(3):e0033. doi: 10.5041/RMMJ.10218. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2015. PMID: 26241223 Free PMC article.

• Lung cancer screening.

  Gutierrez A, Suh R, Abtin F, Genshaft S, Brown K. Gutierrez A, et al. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2013 Jun;30(2):114-20. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1342951. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2013. PMID: 24436526 Free PMC article. Review.

• Absolute Effect of Prostate Cancer Screening: Balance of Benefits and Harms by Center within the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening.

  Auvinen A, Moss SM, Tammela TL, Taari K, Roobol MJ, Schröder FH, Bangma CH, Carlsson S, Aus G, Zappa M, Puliti D, Denis LJ, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Randazzo M, Paez A, Lujan M, Hugosson J. Auvinen A, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Jan 1;22(1):243-9. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0941. Epub 2015 Aug 19. Clin Cancer Res. 2016. PMID: 26289069 Free PMC article.

• Effect of population breast screening on breast cancer mortality up to 2005 in England and Wales: an individual-level cohort study.

  Johns LE, Coleman DA, Swerdlow AJ, Moss SM. Johns LE, et al. Br J Cancer. 2017 Jan 17;116(2):246-252. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2016.415. Epub 2016 Dec 8. Br J Cancer. 2017. PMID: 27931047 Free PMC article.

• Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy and Long-Term Risk of Dilated Cardiomyopathy.

  Tayal U, Kallis C, Massen GM, Rossberg N, Graul EL, Quint JK. Tayal U, et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2025 Apr 2:10.1001/jamacardio.2025.0328. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2025.0328. Online ahead of print. JAMA Cardiol. 2025. PMID: 40172877 Free PMC article.

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3