Assessment of changes to screening programmes: Why randomisation is important

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 350, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Bell, Katy J L ^a   Bossuyt, Patrick ^b   Glasziou, Paul ^a   Irwig, Les ^c  

^a BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLOOD ANALYSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT; DATA ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL SERVICE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SAFETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; TREATMENT PLANNING; UNCERTAINTY; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZATION; STANDARDS;

HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; RANDOM ALLOCATION; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84926324328     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h1566     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, et al. Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet;367:122-32.
2. Houssami N. STORM, a new dimension for mammography screening. Med J Austr 2013;199:308-9.
3. Stegeman I, de Wijkerslooth TR, Stoop EM, et al. Combining risk factors with faecal immunochemical test outcome for selecting CRC screenees for colonoscopy. Gut 2014;63:466-71.
4. Medew J. Bowel cancer screening tests reversed after bungle. Sydney Morning Herald 2010.
5. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian Government. National Bowel Cancer Screening Program monitoring report: phase 2, July 2008-June 2011. CANCER SERIES NO. 65. CAN 61 Canberra, 2012.
6. Australian Government. The Australian bowel cancer screening pilot program and beyond: final evaluation report. 2005. http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/ publishing.nsf/Content/final-eval-cnt.
7. Van Rossum LG, van Rijn AF, Laheij RJ, et al. Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population. Gastroenterology 2008;135:82-90.
8. Hol L, Wilschut JA, van Ballegooijen M, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing at different cut-off levels. Br J Cancer 2009;100:1103-10.
9. Hol L, de Jonge V, van Leerdam ME, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: comparison of perceived test burden of guaiac-based faecal occult blood test, faecal immunochemical test and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:2059-66 .
10. Van Roon AH, Goede SL, van Ballegooijen M, et al. Random comparison of repeated faecal immunochemical testing at different intervals for population-based colorectal cancer screening. Gut 2013;62:409-15.
11. Stoffelen A. Physicians doubt quality of cancer test [In Dutch]. Volkskrantnl 2013 Mar 18. www.volkskrant.nl/dossier-zorg/twijfel-bij-artsen-over-kwaliteit-darmkankertesta3410829.
12. James Lind Alliance. www.lindalliance.org/index.asp.
13. Irwig L, Houssami N, Armstrong B, et al. Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer. BMJ 2006;332:678.
14. Houssami N, Irwig L, Ciatto S. Radiological surveillance of interval breast cancers in screening programmes. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:259-65.