![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
birdwatcherBloomberg Top -- The report, published today in the Archives of Internal Medicine, found that the rate of cancer among women who received biannual mammograms over six years in four Norwegian countries was 22 percent higher than those who didn’t. That may mean that tumors in those who weren’t tested regressed without being treated, researchers said.
“Our findings simply provide new insight on what is arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress,” said the researchers led by Per-Henrik Zahl at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health‘s epidemiology department in Oslo.
“Our findings simply provide new insight on what is arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress,” said the researchers led by Per-Henrik Zahl at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health‘s epidemiology department in Oslo.
Re: PS. From the reference 27
Date: 2008-11-27 06:39 pm (UTC)in posting this article?
Re: PS. From the reference 27
Date: 2008-11-27 06:54 pm (UTC)Теперь, почему именно я запостил эту статью? Потому что она привлекла мое внимание. А что, это какая-то особая, деликатная тема? Надо было сначала с кем-то посоветоваться?
Re: PS. From the reference 27
Date: 2008-11-27 07:48 pm (UTC)And you didn't recognize that it does not provide survival information or does not look beyond 6 years for long-term prognosis ?
It reminds me of these cholesterol-lowering trials, where the researches talk about lower rate of heart disease in treatment group w/out mentioning that overall mortality isn't different between groups.
Re: PS. From the reference 27
Date: 2008-11-27 08:04 pm (UTC)Re: PS. From the reference 27
Date: 2008-11-28 10:39 am (UTC)That the article is published doesn't mean that all the questions were answered.
/\.