Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Cancer screening.

B S Kramer1, O W Brawley

  • 1Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America
|August 19, 2000
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Evaluating cancer screening tools requires strong evidence, not just the assumption of early detection benefits. Understanding study methodology helps clinicians assess evidence and guide recommendations for cancer screening tests.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Five-alpha-reductase Inhibitors for prostate cancer prevention.

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews·2008
Same author

Evidence of a healthy volunteer effect in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial.

American journal of epidemiology·2007
Same author

Trends in biomarker research for cancer detection.

The Lancet. Oncology·2002
Same author

The future of prostate cancer prevention.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences·2002
Same author

Good for women, good for men, bad for people: Simpson's paradox and the importance of sex-specific analysis in observational studies.

Journal of women's health & gender-based medicine·2001
Same author

The paired availability design for historical controls.

BMC medical research methodology·2001
Same journal

Palliative Therapy for Liver and Biliary Neoplasms.

Hematology/oncology clinics of North America·2026
Same journal

Ablative Therapies for Liver Tumors.

Hematology/oncology clinics of North America·2026
Same journal

Pathology of Liver and Biliary Neoplasms.

Hematology/oncology clinics of North America·2026
Same journal

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Liver and Biliary Tract Neoplasms.

Hematology/oncology clinics of North America·2026
Same journal

Surgical Considerations for Primary Liver Neoplasms.

Hematology/oncology clinics of North America·2026
Same journal

Systemic Therapy for Biliary and Liver Neoplasms: Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy.

Hematology/oncology clinics of North America·2026
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Public Health
  • Medical Research Methodology

Background:

  • Cancer screening involves healthy, asymptomatic individuals, necessitating rigorous evidence before widespread adoption.
  • The public health impact of cancer screening tools is substantial.
  • Evaluating screening effectiveness requires moving beyond the intuitive assumption that early detection always improves outcomes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review screening study methodology.
  • To equip readers with tools to critically evaluate evidence for cancer screening.
  • To address potential biases in the assumption that early detection of cancer is always beneficial.

Main Methods:

  • Review of screening study methodologies.
  • Analysis of evidence supporting cancer screening tools.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Identification of biases in the interpretation of screening study results.

    • Main Results:

    • The assumption that early cancer detection always leads to better treatment and survival is not consistently true.
    • Methodological review highlights the importance of critically assessing evidence for screening tools.
    • Understanding biases is crucial for accurate interpretation of screening study data.

    Conclusions:

    • Strong evidence is paramount before implementing new cancer screening tools.
    • Clinicians should critically evaluate the evidence behind screening recommendations.
    • Familiarity with screening study biases aids in applying evidence to clinical practice for cancer screening.