@NightShiftMD @cbcwhitecoat You will have more to say about this in the weeks ahead? Are you going to continue to air only one side of the debate? The highest quality breast cancer research shows NO REDUCTION in all-cause mortality: https://t.co/MDEE2SfmqP
2013 Cochrane Reviews マンモ乳癌検診https://t.co/JsH2FSJ3zY 10年間検診2千人毎に 1人が乳癌死亡回避、10人が不必要に治療される 200人以上が、偽陽性後、何年にもわたり心理的苦痛と不確実性を経験 最近の観察研究 試験より過剰診断多く、検診による進行癌発生率⬇️ 殆どor全くない
@DrJamesOlsson I don't have them https://t.co/WywQiChXDW
@Divinadecampo I’m entirely for routine breast screening, it’s just that with these stories there is rarely any coverage of the harms, in order to enable people to make properly informed choices. https://t.co/6dbfiwEPH0
@vicderbyshire @DawnButlerBrent 9 times out of 10 it didn't, though. "for every 2000 women invited for screening... one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treat
@pdf_27 @DavidDavisMP And I should now point out that the esteemed “professor” has a track record of pushing the truth envelope in his efforts to access funding for his private enterprise. https://t.co/MChXtzZdV7
@pdf_27 @DavidDavisMP For every 2000 women attending mammogram programs throughout a 10 year period 1 death will be avoided and 10 women with pseudodisease will be diagnosed and treated unnecessary. Surgery, chemo, reduced quality of life. https://t.co/MC
@robfoot They are also bad at their jobs and blaming everyone else. Still doing mammograms for breast cancer screening, a scan expected to reduce mortality by zero according to Cochrane, despite being "overwhelmed" and focusing on efficiency for "decades":
RT @EddyLang1: Is there an impact on all cause mortality? "all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03)" as per @Coc…
Is there an impact on all cause mortality? "all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03)" as per @CochranePH @CochraneCanada https://t.co/7c8vOLmZs0
@Medicilio Perdone, hay mucha controversia con el tema de las mamografias. Fuente COCHRANE https://t.co/yFYncdzLDY
@Hunrejen @politiken Hvis du er interesseret: https://t.co/b1Y2dh11C3
@MichelleDiTo1 @karamoon @LibbyMbc Michelle, you know the studies. For anyone else reading the thread. Cochrane 2013 https://t.co/e79ez9VI44 Cdn breastscreening study 2014 https://t.co/wRau0U3Vpy & an interesting new BMJ lit review for young women ht
RT @nana7770214: https://t.co/hFtGwLiu60 https://t.co/tMdgdaAejY https://t.co/mURn7ypRrD https://t.co/hW0ehfRqxh 【乳がん検診(マンモグラフィ)のコクランレビ…
https://t.co/hFtGwLiu60 https://t.co/tMdgdaAejY https://t.co/mURn7ypRrD https://t.co/hW0ehfRqxh 【乳がん検診(マンモグラフィ)のコクランレビューについて言及したツイート】 https://t.co/rbOdiDGOWL https://t.co/mHEIrk9U0V (→)
@_ClaireConnelly @susan_bewley @paulpharoah @mgtmccartney You might consider the pros & cons of screening too. How much does it reduce all cause mortality v how much overdiagnosis https://t.co/53AbrH22k7
RT @GodFamCountry: Why am I against pink ribbons you ask? Because the "race for the cure" hasn't produced anything but a money-making sche…
@ZoeMcLaren @GidMK Disagree. People overestimate the benefits — if there are even any — and cannot fathom how there might be adverse effects from screening. https://t.co/kzDRod9jDn
RT @GodFamCountry: Why am I against pink ribbons you ask? Because the "race for the cure" hasn't produced anything but a money-making sche…
RT @fightingSANGYOI: さらに、200人以上の女性が、偽陽性所見のために何年も不安や不安を含む重要な心理的苦痛を経験することになります。 https://t.co/W6niKsmLvz
さらに、200人以上の女性が、偽陽性所見のために何年も不安や不安を含む重要な心理的苦痛を経験することになります。 https://t.co/W6niKsmLvz
@JRossfamilymed @DrBrendaHardie @guidemd also Cochrane has a description of which studies did have this bias (less of a problem in the oldest ones, more common in the more recent Swedish ones) - (see Right column of pg 7 https://t.co/4LhnLxbTKb “the women
@ElErreCuatro Sí, pero los suizos habían planteado que hacerla y no hacerla impactaba casi igual en la mortalidad y aumentaba intervencionismo y hay una revisión Cochrane al respecto. De ahí la controversia. Pero, pues de eso a nada, sigamos hasta encontra
RT @pierrevabres: "For every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy wom…
@FREDOLEMAIRE Et tu as raison. Un bourrage de crâne culpabilisant à l’encontre des connaissances scientifiques actuelles. @_CancerRose https://t.co/jIt6uVueMw
@vicderbyshire Women need to be given the full, honest facts about mammography screening before making a decision. Shame that you & the tabloids only think about how much cash you can make from terrifying & misinforming the public. https://t.co/LjZ
RT @VickersBiostats: There is virtually no RCT evidence that any public health intervention improves all cause mortality. This is because t…
@Flykzz @docprimum @RoullierY @Delrane @justsaysrisks Et sur la publication au départ, la différence est significative sur les études les moins robustes méthodologiquement, et ne l'est plus sur les autres. https://t.co/fBRp6KwsNF
RT @thierrysouccar: Jour 2 d’#OctobreRose et il n’y a toujours pas plus de preuve qu’au jour 1 que le dépistage du cancer du sein augmente…
RT @thierrysouccar: Jour 2 d’#OctobreRose et il n’y a toujours pas plus de preuve qu’au jour 1 que le dépistage du cancer du sein augmente…
RT @thierrysouccar: Jour 2 d’#OctobreRose et il n’y a toujours pas plus de preuve qu’au jour 1 que le dépistage du cancer du sein augmente…
Jour 2 d’#OctobreRose et il n’y a toujours pas plus de preuve qu’au jour 1 que le dépistage du cancer du sein augmente l’espérance de vie. Revue Cochrane. https://t.co/13QsOvybyq
RT @VPrasadMDMPH: Cancer specific death is so woefully inadequate when when considers the long causal chain of harm from screening Eg ebrt…
RT @VPrasadMDMPH: Cancer specific death is so woefully inadequate when when considers the long causal chain of harm from screening Eg ebrt…
RT @VickersBiostats: There is virtually no RCT evidence that any public health intervention improves all cause mortality. This is because t…
RT @VickersBiostats: There is virtually no RCT evidence that any public health intervention improves all cause mortality. This is because t…
RT @VickersBiostats: There is virtually no RCT evidence that any public health intervention improves all cause mortality. This is because t…
RT @docdu16: Ne faites pas lire cela à Axel Kahn
RT @VPrasadMDMPH: Cancer specific death is so woefully inadequate when when considers the long causal chain of harm from screening Eg ebrt…
Cancer specific death is so woefully inadequate when when considers the long causal chain of harm from screening Eg ebrt to indolent prostate ca inc risk of rectal ca, rectal ca (no neoadj Rt) and death... Not attributed to screening in any way. Many oth
RT @VickersBiostats: There is virtually no RCT evidence that any public health intervention improves all cause mortality. This is because t…
RT @docdu16: Ne faites pas lire cela à Axel Kahn
Two incredibly delicious Gil Welch papers that you just can't un-learn once you see it: https://t.co/k2mbyoUqGw
RT @VickersBiostats: There is virtually no RCT evidence that any public health intervention improves all cause mortality. This is because t…
There is virtually no RCT evidence that any public health intervention improves all cause mortality. This is because the signal of reduced cause-specific mortality is drowned out by the noise of other cause deaths. It is a simple issue of statistical power
@mpuaud ajouter cette meta-analysis Cochrane
"For every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily." @cochranecollab @_CancerRose h
Ne faites pas lire cela à Axel Kahn
@ProfKarolSikora
RT @mgtmccartney: There is no evidence that breast cancer screening improves all cause mortality. https://t.co/qoLU5AnyaW Panic mongering…
@richardblogger He's also wrong on the consequences of hypothetically delayed screening for breast cancer: studies have struggled to show any benefit of it despite significant downsides. eg https://t.co/Muca61IrVI
@axelheitmueller There are big, high quality meta analyses. The latest Cochrane review (2013) is here: https://t.co/Muca61IrVI
Well said Margaret - wish they’d got you to reassure women on Today prog yesterday!
@JamesMelville Breast cancer is a terrible disease. Unfortunately breast cancer screening does NOT reduce all cause mortality. See Cochrane review https://t.co/1Pa1cK2x9a. There are many ill effects of lockdown - we don’t need to make more up.
Avec octobre rose, c'est un mois de propagande pour le dépistage généralisé par mammographie. Avant de reprendre en toute bonne foi ces messages, un peu de lecture https://t.co/bJDTZZE9nq https://t.co/0eA39utgux
and the psychological sequelae of screening, and false positives, should not be forgotten
RT @mgtmccartney: There is no evidence that breast cancer screening improves all cause mortality. https://t.co/qoLU5AnyaW Panic mongering…
There is no evidence that breast cancer screening improves all cause mortality. https://t.co/qoLU5AnyaW Panic mongering does not help anyone. (And I’m always keen to see people publish their COI.)
@rodrigooowww @mathalveslim Basicamente, existe espaço na interpretação da evidência pra compartilhar a decisão com o paciente, quando factível. https://t.co/gRiDCiUjqC https://t.co/CPz2Zzb2g8 Esses estudos têm seus próprios problemas também. O interess
@Yeil_igualdad Habla del screening de mama, del de próstata todavía no he leído nada. Sobre el de mama tengo este metaanálisis: https://t.co/0gxMsYgcSZ
RT @TomPMarshall: @FredrikTycker @VPrasadMDMPH @AgnesWold Lives are only lost if a screening programme saves lives. The authors of the mos…
@FredrikTycker @VPrasadMDMPH @AgnesWold Lives are only lost if a screening programme saves lives. The authors of the most comprehensive review of clinical trials of mammography found no evidence that it saves. If this is true, no lives will be lost by s
RT @GodFamCountry: Why am I against pink ribbons you ask? Because the "race for the cure" hasn't produced anything but a money-making sche…
@cuquita67786361 @majogm "por cada 2000 mujeres invitadas al cribaje a lo largo de diez años, en una se evitará la muerte por cáncer de mama y diez mujeres sanas, que no habrían sido diagnosticadas si no se les hubiera sometido a cribaje, recibirían tratam
@fbarrou @majogm https://t.co/Sh9D76xDmd "por cada 2000 mujeres invitadas al cribaje a lo largo de diez años, en una se evitará la muerte por cáncer de mama y diez mujeres sanas, que no habrían sido diagnosticadas si no se les hubiera sometido a cribaje, r
@AngelaMonAmour @majogm por cada 2000 mujeres invitadas al cribaje a lo largo de diez años, en una se evitará la muerte por cáncer de mama y diez mujeres sanas, que no habrían sido diagnosticadas si no se les hubiera sometido a cribaje, recibirían tratamie
RT @DocEvenhouse: #breastcancer How good is the science behind mammography? See for yourself. Cochrane reviews are helpful. #disrupthealthc…
RT @DocEvenhouse: #breastcancer How good is the science behind mammography? See for yourself. Cochrane reviews are helpful. #disrupthealthc…
@LiangRhea @Nishaobgyn Stick to Cochrane. That's reputable. https://t.co/Ek0CPM4sFS
RT @DrPaulaGordon: You can’t know by individual stories. But there have been 11 Randomized trials performed that proved that screening save…
RT @DrPaulaGordon: You can’t know by individual stories. But there have been 11 Randomized trials performed that proved that screening save…
You can’t know by individual stories. But there have been 11 Randomized trials performed that proved that screening saves lives beginning at age 40, even in the days of primitive mammography.
@Melanie10120 @SharonO42821490 @bmj_latest @DrPaulaGordon How do you know? Women get cancers between screens & others have lived long lives avoiding screening & thus overdiagnosis. Your parent's friends might still die of breast cancer. You might n
RT @nana7770214: 横レスになりますが、マンモグラフィの効果については、ここ10年来大きな疑問符がつけられており「とても有効」などとは言えないと思います。 過剰診断による深刻な弊害も看過できません。 https://t.co/rhhPdbWbkU https:…
RT @nana7770214: 横レスになりますが、マンモグラフィの効果については、ここ10年来大きな疑問符がつけられており「とても有効」などとは言えないと思います。 過剰診断による深刻な弊害も看過できません。 https://t.co/rhhPdbWbkU https:…
RT @nana7770214: 横レスになりますが、マンモグラフィの効果については、ここ10年来大きな疑問符がつけられており「とても有効」などとは言えないと思います。 過剰診断による深刻な弊害も看過できません。 https://t.co/rhhPdbWbkU https:…
RT @nana7770214: 横レスになりますが、マンモグラフィの効果については、ここ10年来大きな疑問符がつけられており「とても有効」などとは言えないと思います。 過剰診断による深刻な弊害も看過できません。 https://t.co/rhhPdbWbkU https:…
RT @nana7770214: 横レスになりますが、マンモグラフィの効果については、ここ10年来大きな疑問符がつけられており「とても有効」などとは言えないと思います。 過剰診断による深刻な弊害も看過できません。 https://t.co/rhhPdbWbkU https:…
RT @nana7770214: 横レスになりますが、マンモグラフィの効果については、ここ10年来大きな疑問符がつけられており「とても有効」などとは言えないと思います。 過剰診断による深刻な弊害も看過できません。 https://t.co/rhhPdbWbkU https:…
横レスになりますが、マンモグラフィの効果については、ここ10年来大きな疑問符がつけられており「とても有効」などとは言えないと思います。 過剰診断による深刻な弊害も看過できません。 https://t.co/rhhPdbWbkU https://t.co/nY12dX9fAo https://t.co/3uduRtF6Vm https://t.co/ayIKSehOaV
@paulpharoah The real issue with breast screening is that many trials had a very high risk of bias which explains the heterogeneoty in result. We have based BC screening on poor evidence far too long.https://t.co/4mtaHo9FFZ
RT @OctaviaWiseman: All women who receive an invitation for breast cancer screening should read this Cochrane review before they make their…
RT @OctaviaWiseman: All women who receive an invitation for breast cancer screening should read this Cochrane review before they make their…
RT @OctaviaWiseman: All women who receive an invitation for breast cancer screening should read this Cochrane review before they make their…
RT @OctaviaWiseman: All women who receive an invitation for breast cancer screening should read this Cochrane review before they make their…
RT @OctaviaWiseman: All women who receive an invitation for breast cancer screening should read this Cochrane review before they make their…
RT @OctaviaWiseman: All women who receive an invitation for breast cancer screening should read this Cochrane review before they make their…
All women who receive an invitation for breast cancer screening should read this Cochrane review before they make their decision https://t.co/laa2hVMFoj
@fenris1234 @waltzing_piglet Tenía entendido que la Cochrane apuntaba a un cierto impacto (15%, moderado) en el cáncer de mama y la duda era el impacto de overtreating y overdiagnosis. ¿Lo entendí mal? No es ironía, me interesa. https://t.co/FSLLExoh4y
@BenMazer Interesting to compare this study with mammography (widely accepted and implemented) which per most recent Cochrane review has a NNT of about 2000 to avoid one death due to breast ca. Lung ca screening similar NNT. https://t.co/PVZTZVUdDU