Breast Cancer Screening Panels Continue to Confuse the Facts and Inject Their Own Biases

Kopans, Daniel B.

doi:10.3747/co.22.2880

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (cnbss) concluded that there was no difference in 13-and 25-year survival between women who underwent screening using mammography plus cbe compared with cbe alone [5][6][7] ; however, those conclusions should be considered in the light that a cbe was performed before randomization and that the cbe had to be normal 8 . Data derived from the Ontario screening program suggested that mammography and nurse-performed cbe result in a higher sensitivity than mammography alone, but with more false positives 9 ; however, those results have minimal carryover in real-world practice because the cbes in that study were performed by nurses who had received special training, a situation that would be clinically applicable only at the cost of great effort 10 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Clinical Breast Examination Important for Breast Cancer Detection?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Clinical Breast Examination Important for Breast Cancer Detection?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the phenomenon of arriving at contrary results can be observed in the more serious areas where mistakes can potentially be lethal. Kopans (2015) recently described how several panels of specialists on breast cancer provided contradictory analyses. In the methodological , 'The unrealistic realist philosophy.…”

Section: Contrary Results Despite the Same Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

The unrealistic realist philosophy. The ontology of econometrics revisited

Maziarz¹

2019

Journal of Philosophical Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The argument put forth in this article shows that the hitherto scientific-realist approaches to econometrics are incongruent with the realistically reconstructed empirical macroeconomics. The SR approaches share in common being realist about the relations depicted by (successful) models. The economic models of data are sensitive to minor changes in sample and estimating methods what creates the 'emerging contrary result' phenomenon: the community of econometricians accept models that are inconsistent. Being SR about econometrics equals committing oneself to the following trilemma: (1) it is feasible to indicate the successful models that rightly isolate/idealize the regularities of the economy (the knowledge thesis); (2) econometric models are about the economic world (the independence thesis); and, at least in some areas of application, (3) successful econometric models contradict each other.

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, “alternative facts” have been generated about breast cancer screening that go back decades. Confusion has resulted from the misinformation that has been published due to poor peer review in some of the most prestigious journals [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. These erroneous analyses are then reported to the public by the media, which is unable to understand some of the complexities of the claims being made, resulting in confusing messages.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Misinformation and Facts about Breast Cancer Screening

Kopans

2022

Current Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quality medical practice is based on science and evidence. For over a half-century, the efficacy of breast cancer screening has been challenged, particularly for women aged 40–49. As each false claim has been raised, it has been addressed and refuted based on science and evidence. Nevertheless, misinformation continues to be promoted, resulting in confusion for women and their physicians. Early detection has been proven to save lives for women aged 40–74 in randomized controlled trials of mammography screening. Observational studies, failure analyses, and incidence of death studies have provided evidence that there is a major benefit when screening is introduced to the general population. In large part due to screening, there has been an over 40% decline in deaths from breast cancer since 1990. Nevertheless, misinformation about screening continues to be promoted, adding to the confusion. Despite claims to the contrary, a careful reading of the guidelines issued by major groups such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the American College of Physicians shows that they all agree that most lives are saved by screening starting at the age of 40. There is no scientific support for using the age of 50 as a threshold for screening. All women should be provided with the facts and not false information about breast cancer screening so that they can make “informed decisions” for themselves about whether to participate.

show abstract

Breast Cancer Screening Panels Continue to Confuse the Facts and Inject Their Own Biases

Abstract: Additional confusion has been added to the “debate” about breast cancer. [...]

Cited by 9 publications

References 43 publications

Is Clinical Breast Examination Important for Breast Cancer Detection?

Is Clinical Breast Examination Important for Breast Cancer Detection?

The unrealistic realist philosophy. The ontology of econometrics revisited

Misinformation and Facts about Breast Cancer Screening

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About