Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 2. Ten potential pitfalls in determining the clinical significance of benefits
- PMID: 8653643
- PMCID: PMC1487736
Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 2. Ten potential pitfalls in determining the clinical significance of benefits
Abstract
A preventive program is only of value if it has proven benefits that outweigh any adverse consequences; unfortunately, determination of the clinical significance of reported benefits is not always easy. The first article of this series discussed the confusion caused by reporting results in terms of relative rates. In this article, 10 other pitfalls that may lead to misunderstanding of the degree of benefits are reviewed. These pitfalls are: the type of outcome chosen (surrogate v. clinically significant), the risk level in the population screened, the interval between the intervention and the benefit, the duration of intervention required to achieve the benefit, the overshadowing of one benefit by another, the application of a benefit for one variant of a disease to another variant, lower benefits in community settings than in clinical trials, publication bias, preferential citation of studies showing beneficial effects and "false-negative" results of studies. These pitfalls are illustrated through examples from the current medical literature.
Similar articles
-
Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 3. Physical, psychological and social harm.CMAJ. 1996 Jul 15;155(2):169-76. CMAJ. 1996. PMID: 8800074 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 1. Influence of reporting methods on perception of benefits.CMAJ. 1996 May 15;154(10):1493-9. CMAJ. 1996. PMID: 8624999 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Dissecting cost-effectiveness analysis for preventive interventions: a guide for decision makers.Am J Manag Care. 1999 Mar;5(3):301-5. Am J Manag Care. 1999. PMID: 10351026
-
Evaluating outcomes of newborn screening programs.Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2003;34 Suppl 3:13-8. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2003. PMID: 15906686
-
Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.Eur J Health Econ. 2008 Nov;9 Suppl 1:5-29. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0122-5. Eur J Health Econ. 2008. PMID: 18987905
Cited by
-
The adrenal incidentaloma: disease of modern technology and public health problem.Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2001 Aug;2(3):335-42. doi: 10.1023/a:1011580819132. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2001. PMID: 11705137 Review.
-
Do the benefits outweigh the side effects of colorectal cancer surveillance? A systematic review.World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014 May 15;6(5):104-11. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v6.i5.104. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014. PMID: 24834140 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Clinical Factors Associated with Asymptomatic Women Having Inconclusive Screening Mammography Results: Experiences from a Single Medical Center in Taiwan.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 19;18(10):5410. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18105410. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. PMID: 34069375 Free PMC article.
-
How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey.Health Econ. 2009 Dec;18(12):1420-39. doi: 10.1002/hec.1437. Health Econ. 2009. PMID: 19191268 Free PMC article.
-
A prospective analysis of false positive events in a National Colon Cancer Surveillance Program.BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Mar 27;14:137. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-137. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014. PMID: 24674307 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources