Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
SUMMARY In the evaluation of uncontrolled service screening programmes for cancer, the case–control design is sometimes used, in which people who die from the disease in question are compared with live controls with respect to screening histories. Such a design tends to yield estimates of relative mortality in voluntary participants compared with non-participants. This may bias results, since compliers and non-compliers may differ a priori in ways which are not related to screening but which nevertheless affect the risk of death from the disease. We present a simple method, employing external data from previously published randomized controlled trials of screening, of correction for this bias. We illustrate it by using data from a case–control study performed within the invited arm of the Malmö mammographic screening trial, a prospective study from the service screening programme in two counties in Sweden, and a matched case–control study of mammographic screening in Florence, Italy.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Duffy et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/69de59ec210a0977fce93e10 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9876.00266
Stephen W. Duffy
AstraZeneca (United Kingdom)
Jack Cuzick
Queen Mary University of London
Làszló Tabár
Uppsala University
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics)
Cancer Research UK
National Taiwan University
The Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: