Simulated screening for prostate cancer: The useful model

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 95, Issue 12, 2003, Pages 838-839

  Church, Timothy R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

CANCER SCREENING; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; MALE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; POPULATION SIZE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; STATISTICAL MODEL; SYMPTOM; BLOOD; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; EUROPE; IMMUNOLOGY; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PROSTATE TUMOR; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TIME; UNITED STATES;

EUROPE; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0038380269     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/95.12.838     Document Type: Editorial

References (3)

1. Box GE. Robustness is the strategy of scientific model building. In: Launer RL, Wilkinson GN, editors. Robustness in statistics. New York (NY): Academic Press; 1979. p. 202.
2. Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ, van der Cruijsen IW, Damhuis RA, Schröder FH, et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:868-78.
3. Hammersley J, Handscomb D. Monte Carlo methods. London (U.K.): Chapman and Hall; 1964.