Are benefits and harms in mammography screening given equal attention in scientific articles? A cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The CONSORT statement specifies the need for a balanced presentation of both benefits and harms of medical interventions in trial reports. However, invitations to screening and newspaper articles often emphasize benefits and downplay or omit harms, and it is known that scientific articles can be influenced by conflicts of interest. We wanted to determine if a similar imbalance occurs in scientific articles on mammography screening and if it is related to author affiliation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched PubMed in April 2005 for articles on mammography screening that mentioned a benefit or a harm and that were published in 2004 in English. Data extraction was performed by three independent investigators, two unblinded and one blinded for article contents, and author names and affiliation, as appropriate. The extracted data were compared and discrepancies resolved by two investigators in a combined analysis. We defined three groups of authors: (1) authors in specialties unrelated to mammography screening, (2) authors in screening-affiliated specialties (radiology or breast cancer surgery) who were not working with screening, or authors funded by cancer charities, and (3) authors (at least one) working directly with mammography screening programmes. We used a data extraction sheet with 17 items described as important benefits and harms in the 2002 WHO/IARC-report on breast cancer screening.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 854 articles, and 143 were eligible for the study. Most were original research. Benefits were mentioned more often than harms (96% vs 62%, P < 0.001). Fifty-five (38%) articles mentioned only benefits, whereas seven (5%) mentioned only harms (P < 0.001). Overdiagnosis was mentioned in 35 articles (24%), but was more often downplayed or rejected in articles that had authors working with screening, (6/15; 40%) compared with authors affiliated by specialty or funding (1/6; 17%), or authors unrelated with screening (1/14; 7%) (P = 0.03). Benefits in terms of reduced breast cancer mortality were mentioned in 109 (76%) articles, and was more often provided as a relative risk reduction than an absolute risk reduction, where quantified (45 articles (31%) versus 6 articles (3%) (P < 0.001)).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Scientific articles tend to emphasize the major benefits of mammography screening over its major harms. This imbalance is related to the authors' affiliation.</p

Dealing with substantial heterogeneity in Cochrane reviews. Cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Dealing with heterogeneity in meta-analyses is often tricky, and there is only limited advice for authors on what to do. We investigated how authors addressed different degrees of heterogeneity, in particular whether they used a fixed effect model, which assumes that all the included studies are estimating the same true effect, or a random effects model where this is not assumed.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We sampled randomly 60 Cochrane reviews from 2008, which presented a result in its first meta-analysis with substantial heterogeneity (I²greater than 50%, i.e. more than 50% of the variation is due to heterogeneity rather than chance). We extracted information on choice of statistical model, how the authors had handled the heterogeneity, and assessed the methodological quality of the reviews in relation to this.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The distribution of heterogeneity was rather uniform in the whole I²interval, 50-100%. A fixed effect model was used in 33 reviews (55%), but there was no correlation between I²and choice of model (P = 0.79). We considered that 20 reviews (33%), 16 of which had used a fixed effect model, had major problems. The most common problems were: use of a fixed effect model and lack of rationale for choice of that model, lack of comment on even severe heterogeneity and of reservations and explanations of its likely causes. The problematic reviews had significantly fewer included trials than other reviews (4.3 vs. 8.0, P = 0.024). The problems became less pronounced with time, as those reviews that were most recently updated more often used a random effects model.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>One-third of Cochrane reviews with substantial heterogeneity had major problems in relation to their handling of heterogeneity. More attention is needed to this issue, as the problems we identified can be essential for the conclusions of the reviews.</p

Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it

International calls for registering all trials involving humans and for sharing the results, and sometimes also the raw data and the trial protocols, have increased in recent years. Such calls have come, for example, from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Health Organization (WHO), the US National Institutes of Heath, the US Congress, the European Commission, the European ombudsman, journal editors, The Cochrane Collaboration, and several funders, for example the UK Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation

Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality (UK Age trial):final results of a randomised, controlled trial

Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.BACKGROUND: The appropriate age range for breast cancer screening remains a matter of debate. We aimed to estimate the effect of mammographic screening at ages 40-48 years on breast cancer mortality. METHODS: We did a randomised, controlled trial involving 23 breast screening units across Great Britain. We randomly assigned women aged 39-41 years, using individual randomisation, stratified by general practice, in a 1:2 ratio, to yearly mammographic screening from the year of inclusion in the trial up to and including the calendar year that they reached age 48 years (intervention group), or to standard care of no screening until the invitation to their first National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) screen at approximately age 50 years (control group). Women in the intervention group were recruited by postal invitation. Women in the control group were unaware of the study. The primary endpoint was mortality from breast cancers (with breast cancer coded as the underlying cause of death) diagnosed during the intervention period, before the participant's first NHSBSP screen. To study the timing of the mortality effect, we analysed the results in different follow-up periods. Women were included in the primary comparison regardless of compliance with randomisation status (intention-to-treat analysis). This Article reports on long-term follow-up analysis. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN24647151. FINDINGS: 160 921 women were recruited between Oct 14, 1990, and Sept 24, 1997. 53 883 women (33·5%) were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 106 953 (66·5%) to the control group. Between randomisation and Feb 28, 2017, women were followed up for a median of 22·8 years (IQR 21·8-24·0). We observed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 10 years of follow-up, with 83 breast cancer deaths in the intervention group versus 219 in the control group (relative rate [RR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·58-0·97]; p=0·029). No significant reduction was observed thereafter, with 126 deaths versus 255 deaths occurring after more than 10 years of follow-up (RR 0·98 [0·79-1·22]; p=0·86). INTERPRETATION: Yearly mammography before age 50 years, commencing at age 40 or 41 years, was associated with a relative reduction in breast cancer mortality, which was attenuated after 10 years, although the absolute reduction remained constant. Reducing the lower age limit for screening from 50 to 40 years could potentially reduce breast cancer mortality. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.Peer reviewe

Systematic reviews as a “lens of evidence”: determinants of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening

This systematic review, stimulated by inconsistency in secondary evidence, reports the benefits and harms of breast cancer (BC) screening and their determinants according to systematic reviews. A systematic search, which identified 9,976 abstracts, led to the inclusion of 58 reviews. BC mortality reduction with screening mammography was 15–25% in trials and 28–56% in observational studies in all age groups, and the risk of stage III+ cancers was reduced for women older than 49 years. Overdiagnosis due to mammography was 1–60% in trials and 1–12% in studies with a low risk of bias, and cumulative false‐positive rates were lower with biennial than annual screening (3–17% vs 0.01–41%). There is no consistency in the reviews’ conclusions about the magnitude of BC mortality reduction among women younger than 50 years or older than 69 years, or determinants of benefits and harms of mammography, including the type of mammography (digital vs screen‐film), the number of views, and the screening interval. Similarly, there was no solid evidence on determinants of benefits and harms or BC mortality reduction with screening by ultrasonography or clinical breast examination (sensitivity ranges, 54–84% and 47–69%, respectively), and strong evidence of unfavourable benefit‐to‐harm ratio with breast self‐examination. The reviews’ conclusions were not dependent on the quality of the reviews or publication date. Systematic reviews on mammography screening, mainly from high‐income countries, systematically disagree on the interpretation of the benefit‐to‐harm ratio. Future reviews are unlikely to clarify the discrepancies unless new original studies are published

A qualitative study of cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Check using different risk calculators: protocol for the RIsk COmmunication in NHS Health Check (RICO) study. BMC family practice, 20(1), 11.

Background NHS Health Check is a national cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment programme for 40–74 year olds in England, in which practitioners should assess and communicate CVD risk, supported by appropriate risk-management advice and goal-setting. This requires effective communication, to equip patients with knowledge and intention to act. Currently, the QRISK®2 10-year CVD risk score is most common way in which CVD risk is estimated. Newer tools, such as JBS3, allow manipulation of risk factors and can demonstrate the impact of positive actions. However, the use, and relative value, of these tools within CVD risk communication is unknown. We will explore practitioner and patient CVD risk perceptions when using QRISK®2 or JBS3, the associated advice or treatment offered by the practitioner, and patients’ responses. Methods RIsk COmmunication in NHS Health Check (RICO) is a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation. Twelve general practices in the West Midlands of England will be randomised to one of two groups: usual practice, in which practitioners use QRISK®2 to assess and communicate CVD risk; intervention, in which practitioners use JBS3. Twenty Health Checks per practice will be video-recorded (n = 240, 120 per group), with patients stratified by age, gender and ethnicity. Post-Health Check, video-stimulated recall (VSR) interviews will be conducted with 48 patients (n = 24 per group) and all practitioners (n = 12–18), using video excerpts to enhance participant recall/reflection. Patient medical record reviews will detect health-protective actions in the first 12-weeks following a Health Check (e.g., lifestyle referrals, statin prescription). Risk communication, patient response and intentions for health-protective behaviours in each group will be explored through thematic analysis of video-recorded Health Checks (using Protection Motivation Theory as a framework) and VSR interviews. Process evaluation will include between-group comparisons of quantitatively coded Health Check content and post-Health Check patient outcomes. Finally, 10 patients with the most positive intentions or behaviours will be selected for case study analysis (using all data sources). Discussion This study will produce novel insights about the utility of QRISK®2 and JBS3 to promote patient and practitioner understanding and perception of CVD risk and associated implications for patient intentions with respect to health-protective behaviours (and underlying mechanisms). Recommendations for practice will be developed

Three-Armed Trials Including Placebo and No-Treatment Groups May Be Subject to Publication Bias: Systematic Review

Background: It has been argued that placebos may not have important clinical impacts in general. However, there is increasing evidence of a publication bias among trials published in journals. Therefore, we explored the potential for publication bias in randomized trials with active treatment, placebo, and no-treatment groups. Methods: Three-armed randomized trials of acupuncture, acupoint stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical stimulation were obtained from electronic databases. Effect sizes between treatment and placebo groups were calculated for treatment effect, and effect sizes between placebo and no-treatment groups were calculated for placebo effect. All data were then analyzed for publication bias. Results: For the treatment effect, small trials with fewer than 100 patients per arm showed more benefits than large trials with at least 100 patients per arm in acupuncture and acupoint stimulation. For the placebo effect, no differences were found between large and small trials. Further analyses showed that the treatment effect in acupuncture and acupoint stimulation may be subject to publication bias because study design and any known factors of heterogeneity were not associated with the small study effects. In the simulation, the magnitude of the placebo effect was smaller than that calculated after considering publication bias. Conclusions: Randomized three-armed trials, which are necessary for estimating the placebo effect, may be subject t