A potential error in evaluating cancer screening: A comparison of 2 approaches for modeling underlying disease progression

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 232-241

  Goldie, Sue J ^a   Kuntz, Karen M ^b  

^a HARVARD CENTER FOR RISK ANALYSIS   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Cancer screening; Markov models; Model errors

Indexed keywords

ADENOMATOUS POLYP; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ANUS CANCER; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COLORECTAL CANCER; DECISION MAKING; DISEASE COURSE; HEALTH STATUS; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MODEL; OCCULT BLOOD; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRECANCER; PROBABILITY; SIGMOIDOSCOPY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU;

DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; HUMANS; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MARKOV CHAINS; MASS SCREENING; NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTORS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 0038814016     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03023003005     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Eddy DM. Screening for Cancer: Theory, Analysis, and Design. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1980.
2. Miller AB. An epidemiological perspective on cancer screening. Clin Biochem. 1995;28:41-8.
3. Wright JC, Weinstein MC. Gains in life expectancy from medical interventions - standardizing data on outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:380-6.
4. Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC, Kuntz KM, Freedberg KA. The costs, clinical benefits, and cost-effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in HIV-infected women. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:97-107.
5. Goldie SJ, Kuntz KM, Weinstein MC, Freedberg KA, Welton M, Palefsky JM. The clinical-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for anal squamous intraepithelial lesions in homosexual and bisexual HIV-positive men. JAMA. 1999;281:1822-9.
6. Goldie SJ, Kuntz KM, Weinstein MC, Freedberg KA, Palefsky JM. Cost-effectiveness of screening for HPV-induced anal squamous intraepithelial lesions in homosexual men. Am J Med. 2000;108:634-41.
7. Frazier AL, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS, Kuntz, KM. Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. JAMA. 2000;284:1954-61.
8. Myers E, McCrory D, Nanda K, Matchar D. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151:1158-71.
9. McCrory D, Mather D, Bastain L, et al. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evidence report/technology assessment no. 5 (prepared by Duke University under contract no. 290-97-0014). AHCPR publication no. 99-E010. Rockville (MD): Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1999.
10. Kuntz KM, Goldie SJ. Assessing the sensitivity of decision- analytic results to unobserved markers of risk: defining the effects of heterogeneity bias. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:218-27.
11. Eddy DM. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:214-26.
12. Mandel JS, Church TR, Bond JH, et al. The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;343:1603-5.
13. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost- Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
14. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:322-38.
15. Halpern MT, Luce BR, Brown RE, Geneste B. Health and economic outcomes modeling practices: A suggested framework. Value Health. 1998;1:131-46.
16. Mandelblatt JS, Fryback DG, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Assessing the effectiveness of health interventions for cost- effectiveness analysis. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12(9):551-8.