Misleading quotations and other errors persist in rejoinder on breast cancer screening [1]

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 1404-

  Gøtzsche, Peter C ^a  

^a Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SURVIVAL; FINLAND; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; LETTER; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RELIABILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; UNITED KINGDOM;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 12344329513     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyh353     Document Type: Letter

References (7)

1. Gøtzsche PC. On the benefits and harms of screening for breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33:56-64.
2. Freedman DA, Petitti DB, Robins JM. On the efficacy of screening for breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33:43-55.
3. Freedman DA, Petitti DB, Robins JM. Rejoinder. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33:69-73.
4. Gøtzsche PC. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Author's reply. Lancet 2001;358:2167-68.
5. Vainio H, Bianchini F (eds). International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbooks of Cancer Prevention. Vol. 7. Breast Cancer Screening. Lyon: IARC Press, 2002.
6. Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Do increased 5-year survival rates in prostate cancer indicate better outcomes? JAMA 2000;284:2053-55.
7. Berry DA. The Utility of Mammography for Women 40 to 50 Years of Age (Con). In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA (eds). Progress in Oncology. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett, 2002, pp. 346-72.