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

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/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.

• Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2009, featuring the burden and trends in human papillomavirus(HPV)-associated cancers and HPV vaccination coverage levels.

  Jemal A, Simard EP, Dorell C, Noone AM, Markowitz LE, Kohler B, Eheman C, Saraiya M, Bandi P, Saslow D, Cronin KA, Watson M, Schiffman M, Henley SJ, Schymura MJ, Anderson RN, Yankey D, Edwards BK. Jemal A, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Feb 6;105(3):175-201. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs491. Epub 2013 Jan 7. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013. PMID: 23297039 Free PMC article.

• Efficacy of an educational material on second primary cancer screening practice for cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial.

  Shin DW, Cho J, Kim YW, Oh JH, Kim SW, Chung KW, Lee WY, Lee JE, Guallar E, Lee WC. Shin DW, et al. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33238. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033238. Epub 2012 Mar 29. PLoS One. 2012. PMID: 22479375 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.

• Data gaps and opportunities for modeling cancer health equity.

  Trentham-Dietz A, Corley DA, Del Vecchio NJ, Greenlee RT, Haas JS, Hubbard RA, Hughes AE, Kim JJ, Kobrin S, Li CI, Meza R, Neslund-Dudas CM, Tiro JA. Trentham-Dietz A, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2023 Nov 8;2023(62):246-254. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgad025. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2023. PMID: 37947335 Free PMC article.

• Screening for prostate cancer.

  Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, Dahm P. Ilic D, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31;2013(1):CD004720. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 23440794 Free PMC article. Review.

• Colonoscopic Screening and Risk of All-Cause and Colorectal Cancer Mortality in Young and Older Individuals.

  Lee JA, Chang Y, Kim Y, Park DI, Park SK, Park HY, Koh J, Lee SJ, Ryu S. Lee JA, et al. Cancer Res Treat. 2023 Apr;55(2):618-625. doi: 10.4143/crt.2022.852. Epub 2022 Sep 19. Cancer Res Treat. 2023. PMID: 36164945 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