Cherry‐picking of evidence fails to accurately show extent of overdiagnosis: mammographic screening harms understated

Emma Woolley

doi:10.1002/jmrs.13

Cherry‐picking of evidence fails to accurately show extent of overdiagnosis: mammographic screening harms understated

Emma Woolley

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/opinion

1 Citation (Scopus)

29 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The article by Lee and Peters (2013) clearly demonstrated bias which is inherent when staff of a program reviews the efficacy of their own program. It takes great bravery and humility to accept that a program which has received as much financial and political investment as BreastScreen Australia might be doing more harm than good. Had Lee and Peters reviewed all of the current evidence on overdiagnosis, the picture painted by the review would have been quite different.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	71
Number of pages	1
Journal	Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences
Volume	60
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.13
Publication status	Published - Jun 2013
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2013. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Access to Document

10.1002/jmrs.13Licence: CC BY-NC

Publisher version (open access)Final published version, 428 KBLicence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

@article{c415c26cacac4959bedaf8b7c211b7ed,

title = "Cherry‐picking of evidence fails to accurately show extent of overdiagnosis: mammographic screening harms understated",

abstract = "The article by Lee and Peters (2013) clearly demonstrated bias which is inherent when staff of a program reviews the efficacy of their own program. It takes great bravery and humility to accept that a program which has received as much financial and political investment as BreastScreen Australia might be doing more harm than good. Had Lee and Peters reviewed all of the current evidence on overdiagnosis, the picture painted by the review would have been quite different.",

author = "Emma Woolley",

note = "Copyright the Author(s) 2013. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.",

year = "2013",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1002/jmrs.13",

language = "English",

volume = "60",

pages = "71",

journal = "Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences",

issn = "2051-3895",

publisher = "John Wiley & Sons",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cherry‐picking of evidence fails to accurately show extent of overdiagnosis

T2 - mammographic screening harms understated

AU - Woolley, Emma

N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2013. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

PY - 2013/6

Y1 - 2013/6

N2 - The article by Lee and Peters (2013) clearly demonstrated bias which is inherent when staff of a program reviews the efficacy of their own program. It takes great bravery and humility to accept that a program which has received as much financial and political investment as BreastScreen Australia might be doing more harm than good. Had Lee and Peters reviewed all of the current evidence on overdiagnosis, the picture painted by the review would have been quite different.

AB - The article by Lee and Peters (2013) clearly demonstrated bias which is inherent when staff of a program reviews the efficacy of their own program. It takes great bravery and humility to accept that a program which has received as much financial and political investment as BreastScreen Australia might be doing more harm than good. Had Lee and Peters reviewed all of the current evidence on overdiagnosis, the picture painted by the review would have been quite different.

U2 - 10.1002/jmrs.13

DO - 10.1002/jmrs.13

M3 - Comment/opinion

C2 - 26229611

SN - 2051-3895

VL - 60

SP - 71

JO - Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences

JF - Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences

IS - 2

ER -

Cherry‐picking of evidence fails to accurately show extent of overdiagnosis: mammographic screening harms understated

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this