Do Physicians Understand Cancer Screening Statistics? A National Survey of Primary Care Physicians in the United States

@article{Wegwarth2012DoPU,
  title={Do Physicians Understand Cancer Screening Statistics? A National Survey of Primary Care Physicians in the United States},
  author={Odette Wegwarth and Lisa M. Schwartz and Steven Woloshin and Wolfgang Gaissmaier and Gerd Gigerenzer},
  journal={Annals of Internal Medicine},
  year={2012},
  volume={156},
  pages={340 - 349}
}
BACKGROUND Unlike reduced mortality rates, improved survival rates and increased early detection do not prove that cancer screening tests save lives. Nevertheless, these 2 statistics are often used to promote screening. OBJECTIVE To learn whether primary care physicians understand which statistics provide evidence about whether screening saves lives. DESIGN Parallel-group, randomized trial (randomization controlled for order effect only), conducted by Internet survey. (ClinicalTrials.gov… 
Primary care physicians surveyed in this study mistakenly interpreted improved survival and increased detection with screening as evidence that screening saves lives
TLDR
Primary care physicians need to interpret results of randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of screening tests, but there is no evidence that they interpret screening-related statistics correctly.
The Barrier to Informed Choice in Cancer Screening: Statistical Illiteracy in Physicians and Patients.
  • O. Wegwarth, G. Gigerenzer
  • Medicine
    Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer
  • 2018
TLDR
A critical mass of informed citizens will not resolve all healthcare problems, but it can constitute a major triggering factor for better care.
Primary Care Provider and Patient Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening. A Qualitative Study.
TLDR
While patients and providers are receptive to LDCT screening, efforts are needed to improve guideline knowledge and adherence among providers.
Physicians' and Patients' Knowledge of Cancer Screening - A Wake-Up Call
TLDR
Two studies leave no doubt that many doctors are not in a position to inform their patients adequately of the benefits and harms of cancer screening and the trend towards a one-sided emphasis on the benefit and neglect of the risks became clear.
Do doctors understand the test characteristics of lung cancer screening?
TLDR
The reduction in the number of deaths due to screening was overestimated six-fold compared with the actual data, and there was no effect of group allocation.
US gynecologists’ estimates and beliefs regarding ovarian cancer screening’s effectiveness 5 years after release of the PLCO evidence
TLDR
Overall, results highlight the need for intensified training programs on the interpretation of medical evidence and the provision of fact box summaries in medical journals may additionally improve the practice of evidence-based medicine.
Physicians' and Patients' Knowledge of Cancer Screening - A Wake-Up Call
TLDR
Many doctors are not in a position to inform their patients adequately of the benefits and harms of cancer screening, and the trend towards a one-sided emphasis on the benefit and neglect of the risks became clear in a study involving 34 Austrian general physicians and internists.
Screening for lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.
TLDR
Screening with LDCT of appropriate individuals in the context of a structured process is associated with a significant reduction in the number of lung cancer deaths in the screened population, given the complex interplay of factors inherent in screening.
Physicians' knowledge and practice of lung cancer screening: a cross-sectional survey comparing general practitioners, thoracic oncologists, and pulmonologists in France.
TLDR
These results highlight the interest of physicians for lung cancer screening; meanwhile, the data stress the need for appropriate medical education and recommendations based on available evidence.
Cancer screening risk literacy of physicians in training: An experimental study
TLDR
It is demonstrated that comprehension of cancer screening statistics and the ability to infer the potential benefits for patients are essential for evidence-based recommendations, however, strong beliefs in favor of screening fostered by promotion campaigns may influence how physicians evaluate evidence about specific screenings.
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 31 REFERENCES
Overstating the evidence for lung cancer screening: the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP) study.
TLDR
2 fundamental principles that physicians should remember when thinking about screening are highlighted: survival is always prolonged by early detection, even when deaths are not delayed nor any lives saved, and randomized trials are the only way to reliably determine whether screening does more good than harm.
Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.
TLDR
After 7 to 10 years of follow-up, the rate of death from prostate cancer was very low and did not differ significantly between the two study groups.
Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study.
TLDR
PSA-based screening reduced the rate of death from prostate cancer by 20% but was associated with a high risk of overdiagnosis.
Are increasing 5-year survival rates evidence of success against cancer?
TLDR
Although 5-year survival is a valid measure for comparing cancer therapies in a randomized trial, the analysis shows that changes in 5- year survival over time bear little relationship to changes in cancer mortality and appear primarily related to changing patterns of diagnosis.
Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study
TLDR
Most stakeholders in pregnancy screening draw incorrect inferences from probabilistic information, and health professionals need to be aware of the difficulties that both they and their patients have with such information.
"There is nothing to worry about": gynecologists' counseling on mammography.
TLDR
A sample of German gynecologists was not able to correctly and transparently communicate the benefit and harms of mammography screening to a patient.
Number Needed To Treat and Relative Risk Reduction
  • B. P. Jain
  • Medicine
    Annals of Internal Medicine
  • 1998
TLDR
It is suggested that systematic reviews should report efficacy of treatments primarily as relative risk reductions, because it is directly applicable to other patients with different baseline risks and may make physicians more likely to use the same treatment in their own patients.
Informed decision making: What is its role in cancer screening?
TLDR
Little or no evidence exists regarding whether these interventions result in participation in decision making at a level consistent with patient preferences or effects on patient satisfaction with the decision‐making process, and these variables generally either were not assessed or were not reported in the articles reviewed.
The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians
TLDR
While a framing effect may exist, particularly when results are presented in terms of proportional or absolute measures of gain or loss, it appears highly susceptible to modification, and even neutralization, by other factors that influence doctors’ decision making.
Overdiagnosis in cancer.
TLDR
The two prerequisites for cancer overdiagnosis to occur are described: the existence of a silent disease reservoir and activities leading to its detection (particularly cancer screening), and the magnitude of over diagnosis from randomized trials.
...
1
2
3
4
...