Report bias favours screening

@article{Dreier2011ReportBF,
  title={Report bias favours screening},
  author={Maren Dreier and Thorsten Meyer and Ulla Walter},
  journal={BMJ : British Medical Journal},
  year={2011},
  volume={342}
}
While aiming to assess prostate cancer specific mortality, Sandblom and colleagues indicate a “prostate cancer specific mortality” in the screening group of 35% and in the control group of 45%, which actually is the case fatality rate.1 The true prostate cancer specific mortality was 2% (30/1494) in the screening group and 1.7% (130/7532) in … 
pSa mass screening: is there enough evidence?
Prostate cancer plays an important role in widely understood aspects of men’s health, and is becoming a growing problem in terms of public life. Prostate cancer is one of the most common neoplasms
PSA mass screening: is there enough evidence?
TLDR
New and accurate screening tools are necessary, along with adequate counseling and risk stratification, to offer appropriate males adequate diagnostic tools and treatments for prostate cancer.
Authors’ reply
TLDR
The number of men in the screening group is much smaller than in the ERSPC and PLCO studies, but the long follow-up gives statistical power to detect major hypothetical differences in prostate cancer mortality.

References

SHOWING 1-5 OF 5 REFERENCES
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.
Randomised prostate cancer screening trial: 20 year follow-up
TLDR
After 20 years of follow-up the rate of death from prostate cancer did not differ significantly between men in the screening group and those in the control group.
Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics
TLDR
Evidence is provided that statistical illiteracy is common to patients, journalists, and physicians and that information pamphlets, Web sites, leaflets distributed by the pharmaceutical industry, and even medical journals often report evidence in nontransparent forms that suggest big benefits of featured interventions and small harms.