PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

David F Ransohoff

Publications and source records attributed to David F Ransohoff.

32 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

Accuracy of self-reports of fecal occult blood tests and test results among individuals in the carpentry trade.

BACKGROUND: Inaccuracy in self-reports of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening procedures (e.g., over- or underreporting) may interfere with individuals adhering to appropriate screening intervals, and can blur the true effects of physician recommendations to screen and the effects of interventions designed to promote screening. We assessed accuracy of self-report of having a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within a 1-year window based on receipt of FOBT kits among individuals aged 50 and older in the carpentry trade (N = 658) who were off-schedule for having had a FOBT. METHOD: Indices of evaluating accuracy of self-reports (concordance, specificity, false-positive and false-negative rates) were calculated relative to receipt of a mailed FOBT. Among those who mailed a completed FOBT, we assessed accuracy of reporting the test result. RESULTS: Participants underestimated having performed a FOBT (false-negative rate of 44%). Accuracy was unrelated to perceptions of getting or worrying about CRC or family history. Self-reports of having a negative FOBT result more consistently matched the laboratory result (specificity 98%) than having a positive test result (sensitivity 63%). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to other findings, participants under- rather than over reported FOBT screening. Results suggest greater efforts are needed to enhance accurate recall of FOBT screening.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

Adequacy of reporting race/ethnicity in clinical trials in areas of health disparities.

Although federal initiatives have mandated broader inclusion of minorities in clinical research on diseases that have disparities in health by race and ethnicity, it is not clear whether these initiatives have affected reporting of trial results. The objective of this study was to examine the reporting of race/ethnicity in clinical trials reports in areas of known disparities in health (i.e., diabetes, cardiovascular disease, HIV/AIDS, and cancer) and to determine what factors were associated with reporting of race/ethnicity in results. We performed a Medline search covering the period January 1989 to Oct 2000 to identify clinical trials of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, HIV/AIDS, and cancer published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine. The main outcome measure was the reporting of participation and of results by race/ethnicity of trial participants. Of 253 eligible trials, 40% (n=102) were non race-focused yet did not report race, while 2% (n=4) were non gender-focused and did not report gender. Forty-six percent of trials that reported the race/ethnicity of the sample reported only one or two racial/ethnic categories, and in 43% of these trials the total number of individuals reported in each race/ethnicity category did not equal the total reported sample size. Analysis of results by race/ethnicity was reported in only two trials, and by gender in only three trials. In diseases with known racial and ethnic disparities, many clinical trials do not report the race/ethnicity of the study participants, and almost none report analyses by race/ethnicity. Although federal initiatives mandate inclusion of minority groups in research, that inclusion has not translated to reporting of results that might guide therapeutic decisions.

Data Collection↗
PubMed2002

Why is prostate cancer screening so common when the evidence is so uncertain? A system without negative feedback.

The degree of enthusiasm for prostate cancer screening seems high given the limited evidence of benefit and the well-documented harms of treatment that include impotence and incontinence. The purpose of this review is to understand the reasons for enthusiasm and positive reinforcement perceived in clinical decisions about whether to screen, whether to choose aggressive therapy for cancer, and in how to view adverse effects following therapy. We discuss a case of a man who must decide whether to undergo prostate-specific antigen screening and treatment to illustrate the kinds of reinforcement that may occur for each decision.Strong positive reinforcement for each decision would make screening and aggressive therapy appear to be successful and the correct decision even if prostate cancer screening and therapy were not beneficial. A physician is positively reinforced for recommending screening, regardless of the test result, because a negative result makes a patient grateful for reassurance and a positive result makes a patient grateful for early detection. A patient who is impotent and incontinent after a decision for curative treatment may attribute his survival to surgery and be grateful for having his cancer cured. Individual experience provides almost no negative feedback that early detection and aggressive treatment may not work. Although reinforcement operates similarly in other medical decisions, the example of prostate cancer provides insight into the strength of the forces at work because the personal harms, which are relatively common and dramatic, are readily discounted or explained away. Even if prostate cancer screening is eventually demonstrated to provide benefit for asymptomatic persons, it is important to appreciate the strength of forces that may act independently of benefit and reinforce decision makers' choices to be aggressive about screening and treatment. Interventions should be considered to temper possible overenthusiasm for screening and treatment.

Aged↗
PubMed2002

Results of screening colonoscopy among persons 40 to 49 years of age.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of colorectal lesions in persons 40 to 49 years of age, as identified on colonoscopy, has not been determined. METHODS: We reviewed the procedure and pathology reports for 906 consecutive persons 40 to 49 years of age who voluntarily participated in an employer-based screening-colonoscopy program. The histologic features of lesions that were identified and removed on endoscopy were categorized according to those of the most advanced lesion removed proximally (up to the junction of the splenic flexure and the descending colon) and the most advanced lesion removed distally. An advanced lesion was defined as an adenoma at least 1 cm in diameter, a polyp with villous histologic features or severe dysplasia, or a cancer. RESULTS: Among those who underwent colonoscopic screening, 78.9 percent had no detected lesions, 10.0 percent had hyperplastic polyps, 8.7 percent had tubular adenomas, and 3.5 percent had advanced neoplasms, none of which were cancerous (95 percent confidence interval for cancer, 0 to 0.4 percent). Eighteen of 33 advanced neoplasms (55 percent) were located distally and were potentially within reach of a sigmoidoscope. If these results are applicable to the general population, at least 250 persons, and perhaps 1000 or more, would need to be screened to detect one cancer in this age group. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopic detection of colorectal cancer is uncommon in asymptomatic persons 40 to 49 years of age. The noncancerous lesions are equally distributed proximally and distally. The low yield of screening colonoscopy in this age group is consistent with current recommendations about the age at which to begin screening in persons at average risk.

Adenoma↗
PubMed2002

Gastroesophageal reflux, barrett esophagus, and esophageal cancer: scientific review.

CONTEXT: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a risk factor for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, a rare cancer whose incidence is increasing. Adenocarcinoma may develop from Barrett esophagus, a metaplastic change of the esophageal epithelium from squamous to intestinalized columnar mucosa, which is associated with chronic reflux. Some have recommended that patients with chronic reflux symptoms undergo upper endoscopy to assess for Barrett esophagus and to screen for cancer. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence linking GERD and Barrett esophagus to esophageal adenocarcinoma and to examine the utility of upper endoscopy as a screening tool in adenocarcinoma of the esophagus among individuals with GERD. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search was performed to identify all pertinent English-language reports about GERD, adenocarcinoma, and Barrett esophagus from 1968 through 2001. Reports were of randomized controlled clinical trials if available, case-control data if trials were unavailable, and cohort studies if case-control data were unavailable. Pertinent bibliographies were also reviewed to find reports not otherwise identified. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were selected by using the search terms gastroesophageal reflux, adenocarcinoma, and Barrett's esophagus, with subheadings for classification, complications, drug therapy, economics, epidemiology, mortality, surgery, and prevention and control. Clinical guidelines for the care of subjects with GERD and Barrett esophagus were retrieved and abstracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Cohort studies demonstrate that symptoms of GERD occur monthly in almost 50% of US adults and weekly in almost 20%. Three large case-control studies demonstrate a positive association between reflux symptoms and risk of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, with more prolonged and severe symptoms accentuating this risk. However, because of the low incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and the ubiquity of reflux symptoms, the risk of cancer in any given individual with reflux symptoms is low. No randomized trial data are available to demonstrate either decreased cancer incidence or increased life expectancy in subjects with GERD who undergo screening endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Strong evidence supports the association of GERD and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus; however, the risk of cancer in any given individual with GERD is low. Barrett esophagus appears to be a common precursor lesion to this cancer. Given the low absolute risk of cancer in those with GERD and the lack of demonstrated efficacy of endoscopic screening, insufficient evidence exists to endorse routine endoscopic screening of patients with chronic GERD symptoms.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2002

Gastroesophageal reflux, Barrett esophagus, and esophageal cancer: clinical applications.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a condition commonly encountered in the primary care setting, is a risk factor for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Despite the ubiquity of the complaint, considerable uncertainty exists with respect to several basic questions, including when to perform endoscopy in patients with chronic reflux symptoms and how to address the cancer risk associated with GERD. These clinical vignettes illustrate common clinical questions encountered in caring for patients with GERD, especially as they relate to the issue of cancer risk. Applying data reviewed in the companion article, we propose practical answers to common clinical situations regarding care of patients with reflux. We also present an algorithm for treatment of patients with chronic GERD symptoms.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2002

Screening colonoscopy in balance. Issues of implementation.

Although colonoscopy is currently considered an option for colon cancer screening, its choice as a preferred screening test is not supported by data, recommendations, or cost-effectiveness analysis. The use of colonoscopy in postpolypectomy surveillance constitutes a huge potential effort that should be appropriately anticipated and managed. Noninvasive methods for colon cancer screening may reduce the need for colonoscopy in the future.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2002

Challenges and opportunities in evaluating diagnostic tests.

The field of clinical research conducted to evaluate diagnostic tests has evolved substantially over the last 25 years. This article discusses three current challenges and opportunities in conducting such research: the limitations of the "traditional focus" of clinical epidemiology in evaluating tests; how different decision makers use data produced by clinical epidemiology research, and what those uses mean for future research; and special challenges and opportunities in evaluating molecular-based tests.

Diagnosis↗