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

Showing content from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18381468 below:

Accuracy of self-reported cancer-screening histories: a meta-analysis

Review

Affiliations

• ¹ School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. garthr@uic.edu

• PMID: 18381468
• DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2629

Item in Clipboard

Review

Garth H Rauscher et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Apr.

• ¹ School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. garthr@uic.edu

• PMID: 18381468
• DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2629

Item in Clipboard

Background: Survey data used to study trends in cancer screening may overestimate screening utilization while potentially underestimating existing disparities in use.

Methods: We did a literature review and meta-analysis of validation studies examining the accuracy of self-reported cancer-screening histories. We calculated summary random-effects estimates for sensitivity and specificity, separately for mammography, clinical breast exam (CBE), Pap smear, prostate-specific antigen testing (PSA), digital rectal exam, fecal occult blood testing, and colorectal endoscopy.

Results: Sensitivity was highest for mammogram, CBE, and Pap smear (0.95, 0.94, and 0.93, respectively) and lowest for PSA and digital rectal exam histories (0.71 and 0.75). Specificity was highest for endoscopy, fecal occult blood testing, and PSA (0.90, 0.78, and 0.73, respectively) and lowest for CBE, Pap smear, and mammogram histories (0.26, 0.48, and 0.61, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity summary estimates tended to be lower in predominantly Black and Hispanic samples compared with predominantly White samples. When estimates of self-report accuracy from this meta-analysis were applied to cancer-screening prevalence estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, results suggested that prevalence estimates are artificially increased and disparities in prevalence are artificially decreased by inaccurate self-reports.

Conclusions: National survey data are overestimating cancer-screening utilization for several common procedures and may be masking disparities in screening due to racial/ethnic differences in reporting accuracy.

PubMed Disclaimer

• Testing for prostate and colorectal cancer: comparison of self-report and medical record audit.

  Hall HI, Van Den Eeden SK, Tolsma DD, Rardin K, Thompson T, Hughes Sinclair A, Madlon-Kay DJ, Nadel M. Hall HI, et al. Prev Med. 2004 Jul;39(1):27-35. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.02.024. Prev Med. 2004. PMID: 15207983

• Implications of false-positive results for future cancer screenings.

  Taksler GB, Keating NL, Rothberg MB. Taksler GB, et al. Cancer. 2018 Jun 1;124(11):2390-2398. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31271. Epub 2018 Apr 23. Cancer. 2018. PMID: 29682740 Free PMC article.

• Awareness and uptake of colorectal, breast, cervical and prostate cancer screening tests in Spain.

  Carrasco-Garrido P, Hernandez-Barrera V, Lopez de Andres A, Jimenez-Trujillo I, Gallardo Pino C, Jimenez-Garcıa R. Carrasco-Garrido P, et al. Eur J Public Health. 2014 Apr;24(2):264-70. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckt089. Epub 2013 Jun 27. Eur J Public Health. 2014. PMID: 23813710

• Predictors of screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostatic cancer among community-based primary care practices.

  Ruffin MT, Gorenflo DW, Woodman B. Ruffin MT, et al. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2000 Jan-Feb;13(1):1-10. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.13.1.1. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2000. PMID: 10682879 Review.

• Agreement between self-reported and registered colorectal cancer screening: a meta-analysis.

  Dodou D, de Winter JC. Dodou D, et al. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2015 May;24(3):286-98. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12204. Epub 2014 Apr 23. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2015. PMID: 24754544 Review.

• Recommendations for a national agenda to substantially reduce cervical cancer.

  Smith JS, Brewer NT, Saslow D, Alexander K, Chernofsky MR, Crosby R, Derting L, Devlin L, Dunton CJ, Engle J, Fernandez M, Fouad M, Huh W, Kinney W, Pierce J, Rios E, Rothholz MC, Shlay JC, Shedd-Steele R, Vernon SW, Walker J, Wynn T, Zimet GD, Casey BR. Smith JS, et al. Cancer Causes Control. 2013 Aug;24(8):1583-93. doi: 10.1007/s10552-013-0235-8. Epub 2013 Jul 5. Cancer Causes Control. 2013. PMID: 23828553 Free PMC article.

• Cytology use for cervical cancer screening in Portugal: results from the 2005/2006 National Health Survey.

  Oliveira M, Peleteiro B, Lunet N. Oliveira M, et al. Eur J Public Health. 2014 Apr;24(2):253-8. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckt077. Epub 2013 Jun 20. Eur J Public Health. 2014. PMID: 23788013 Free PMC article.

• Using colorectal trends in the U.S. to identify unmet primary care needs of vulnerable populations.

  Miranda PY, Johnson-Jennings M, Tarraf W, González P, Vega WA, González HM. Miranda PY, et al. Prev Med. 2012 Aug;55(2):131-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.05.016. Epub 2012 May 30. Prev Med. 2012. PMID: 22659226 Free PMC article.

• Non-normal Screening Mammography Results, Lumpectomies, and Breast Cancer Reported by California Women, 2001-2009.

  Irvin VL, Breen N, Meissner HI, Liu B, Kaplan RM. Irvin VL, et al. Womens Health Issues. 2015 Jul-Aug;25(4):331-40. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2015.03.003. Epub 2015 Jun 9. Womens Health Issues. 2015. PMID: 26070253 Free PMC article.

• Screening participation after a false positive result in organized cervical cancer screening: a nationwide register-based cohort study.

  Larsen PT, Jørgensen SF, Tranberg M, Njor SH. Larsen PT, et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Sep 22;10(1):15427. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-72279-x. Sci Rep. 2020. PMID: 32963299 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