1-1banner
 
medpundit
 

 
Commentary on medical news by a practicing physician.
 

 
Google
  • Epocrates MedSearch Drug Lookup




  • MASTER BLOGS





    "When many cures are offered for a disease, it means the disease is not curable" -Anton Chekhov




    ''Once you tell people there's a cure for something, the more likely they are to pressure doctors to prescribe it.''
    -Robert Ehrlich, drug advertising executive.




    "Opinions are like sphincters, everyone has one." - Chris Rangel



    email: medpundit-at-ameritech.net

    or if that doesn't work try:

    medpundit-at-en.com



    Medpundit RSS


    Quirky Museums and Fun Stuff


    Who is medpundit?


    Tech Central Station Columns



    Book Reviews:
    Read the Review

    Read the Review

    Read the Review

    More Reviews

    Second Hand Book Reviews

    Review


    Medical Blogs

    rangelMD

    DB's Medical Rants

    Family Medicine Notes

    Grunt Doc

    richard[WINTERS]

    code:theWebSocket

    Psychscape

    Code Blog: Tales of a Nurse

    Feet First

    Tales of Hoffman

    The Eyes Have It

    medmusings

    SOAP Notes

    Obels

    Cut-to -Cure

    Black Triangle

    CodeBlueBlog

    Medlogs

    Kevin, M.D

    The Lingual Nerve

    Galen's Log

    EchoJournal

    Shrinkette

    Doctor Mental

    Blogborygmi

    JournalClub

    Finestkind Clinic and Fish Market

    The Examining Room of Dr. Charles

    Chronicles of a Medical Mad House

    .PARALLEL UNIVERSES.

    SoundPractice

    Medgadget
    Health Facts and Fears

    Health Policy Blogs

    The Health Care Blog

    HealthLawProf Blog

    Facts & Fears

    Personal Favorites

    The Glittering Eye

    Day by Day

    BioEdge

    The Business Word Inc.

    Point of Law

    In the Pipeline

    Cronaca

    Tim Blair

    Jane Galt

    The Truth Laid Bear

    Jim Miller

    No Watermelons Allowed

    Winds of Change

    Science Blog

    A Chequer-Board of Night and Days

    Arts & Letters Daily

    Tech Central Station

    Blogcritics

    Overlawyered.com

    Quackwatch

    Junkscience

    The Skeptic's Dictionary



    Recommended Reading

    The Doctor Stories by William Carlos Williams


    Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82 by Elizabeth Fenn


    Intoxicated by My Illness by Anatole Broyard


    Raising the Dead by Richard Selzer


    Autobiography of a Face by Lucy Grealy


    The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks


    The Sea and Poison by Shusaku Endo


    A Midwife's Tale by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich




    MEDICAL LINKS

    familydoctor.org

    American Academy of Pediatrics

    General Health Info

    Travel Advice from the CDC

    NIH Medical Library Info

     



    button

    Tuesday, September 03, 2002

    Mammography Debate Continues: Fresh fuel has been added to the mammogram controversy fire. The US Preventive Services Task Force released the data it used to back up its continued recommendations that women aged 40 to 50 continue to get mammograms every one to two years, despite evidence last year that mammograms in this age group made no difference in breast cancer outcomes. (A good synopsis of last year’s controversy can be found here.) Meanwhile, at the same time, a Canadian study has been released that shows no benefit of mammography for women in this age group.

    The USPSTF is the government body that makes evidence-based recommendations on how preventive medicine should be practiced. Insurance companies and the government use their recommendations to monitor the quality of a physician’s practice. I routinely recieve notices from insurance companies informing me which of my patients, beginning at age 40 have failed to get their mammograms. The problem is, that all evidence is not created equal. The USPSTF data are based on a “metanalysis” of other studies, a practice which involves taking all the data from other research and mixing it in a statistical soup. The problem with this approach, is that published research tends to be biased toward studies that show a postive effect of treatment, so the combined analysis can be stacked toward treatment or, in this case screening. The other problem is that it can exaggerate the findings of a collection of poorly designed or border-line adequate studies by grouping them all together. It's one of the murkiest ways to come to conclusions about a test or a treatment, and not all that reliable.

    The Canadian study is the better and more reliable research. It looked at 25,214 women who had mammograms every one to two years, and 25,214 women who didn’t, ages 40 to 50 and followed them for eleven years. There were 105 breast cancer deaths in the mammography group and 108 in the non-mammography group. Essentially no difference.

    Yet, the controversy continues, and it probably will for some time, at least in this country. Breast cancer and mammograms have become so politicized here that decisions about it unfortunately tend to be made with the heart, not the head.

    For summaries of the two studies click here and here. This portion of the USPSTF summary is particularly apt:

    As better studies become available, recommendations about breast cancer screening may change.

    Looks like those better studies are already here.
     

    posted by Sydney on 9/03/2002 06:42:00 AM 0 comments

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    This page is powered by Blogger, the easy way to update your web site.

    Main Page

    Ads

    Home   |   Archives

    Copyright 2006