Statistics is not a surrogate for judgment

American Journal of Clinical Oncology: Cancer Clinical Trials

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 327-328

  Kagan, A Robert ^a,b  

^a KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

^b Radiation Oncology   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical investigators; Clinical trials; Informed consent; Overreliance on statistical data; Patient MD relationship; Peer review; Prostate cancer; Statistics

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION MAKING; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; PEER REVIEW; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; STATISTICS;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; COMMUNICATION BARRIERS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; NEOPLASMS; PATERNAL BEHAVIOR; PATIENT EDUCATION; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; TRUTH DISCLOSURE;

EID: 23244442843     PISSN: 02773732     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.coc.0000144851.74216.27     Document Type: Review

References (4)

1. Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, et al. A randomized trial comparing prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:781-789.
2. Woloshin S, Schwartz L, Ellner A. Making sense of risk information on the web. BMJ. 2003;327:695-696.
3. Peto J. Cancer epidemiology in the last century and the next decade. Nature. 2001;411:390-395.
4. Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, et al., eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1973-2000. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2003.