PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Screen Time”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 433 records · Page 24Linked to original sources
PubMed1995

Group B streptococcus. Is it time for a screening program?

Group B streptococcal infection often causes perinatal sepsis. Early diagnosis is based on a high index of suspicion and laboratory tests. Proposed interventions targeted at the antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum periods have met with limited success. Screening has not been widely adopted.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Length and lead time biases in radiologic screening for lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to investigate whether the length and lead-time biases of radiologic screening for lung cancers vary according to the histologic type of the tumor. METHODS: We analyzed the survival rates and radiographs of 119 cases of adenocarcinomas-large-cell carcinomas (ALC) and 50 peripheral squamous cell carcinomas (PSQ) detected in 205,401 screened individuals. RESULTS: The sensitivity of screening and 5-year survival rates were 84.0% and 48.2% for ALC, and 52.0% and 18.5% for PSQ, respectively. The corrected length bias was 4.3% for ALC and 4. 6% for PSQ. Stage III-IV ALC was often identified on 1-year-old films, but stage III-IV PSQ was not. Half of stage I ALC presented 2 or more years before detection, while half of stage I PSQ appeared within 1 year before detection. The survival rate of nonresected cases with stage I ALC was decreased 4 years after detection, while that of nonresected cases with stage I PSQ was decreased just after detection. The period of stage I ALC and PSQ was at least 6 years and 1 year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Slowly growing ALC had high sensitivity in radiologic screening and a high rate in 5-year survival, but had long lead time and delay in detection. PSQ grew rapidly resulting in low sensitivity in radiologic screening, and short lead time and survival. In both types, the magnitude of corrected length bias was not remarkable. The survival of ALC should be carefully evaluated because of the long lead time.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Age-specific prostate-specific antigen: a reassessment.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to compare expected survival benefits when screening for prostate cancer with PSA, using an age-specific bound relative to a cutoff of 4.0 ng/ml. METHODS: We used a decision analysis modeling the cancer yield in a cohort screened by both screening tests, and the survival of cancer cases given screen detection and in the absence of screening. Expected cancer yields and positive predictive values were from an ultrasound-guided biopsy series. Stage distributions of screen-detected cases were obtained from the literature. For localized causes, survival given screen detection was assumed to be equal to normal life expectancy for the population. For these cases, survival in the absence of screening was modeled as time from clinical diagnosis to death added to time remaining after time of screen and before clinical diagnosis was made (lead time). For nonlocalized cases at screen detection, survival given screen detection was assumed to be equal to survival in the absence of screening. The average difference between expected survival with and without screening as calculated for age-specific PSA and for PSA > 4.0 ng/ml and compared. RESULTS: Average years of life saved per subject screened using PSA > 4.0 ng/ml were comparable to those using the age-specific bound. Average years of life saved per cancer case, however, appeared to be potentially greater for PSA > 4.0 ng/ml than for age-specific. PSA. PSA > 4.0 ng/ml detected markedly more prostate cancer cases than age-specific PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Using a bound of 4.0 ng/ml for all ages appears to be more efficient in identifying men with cancer in a screening cohort, which translates into a greater expected survival benefit per cancer case.

Aged↗
PubMed1996

Cost-effective policies for cervical cancer screening. An international review.

Screening programmes for cervical cancer have been credited with reducing the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer. The main components of these screening programmes are: (i) their level of organisation; (ii) the age at which women begin screening; (iii) the age at which women discontinue screening; (iv) the interval between repeat screens; (v) the frequency at which the programmes provide screening; and (vi) the response to an abnormal screening test. However, not all screening programmes are equally efficient and differences in programme components can result in big differences in their cost effectiveness. Studies that employ cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to examine the efficiency of different programme components can inform the development of cost-effective programmes. This article presents findings of an international review of cost-effectiveness studies of cervical cancer screening. These studies consistently find that certain types of programmes are more cost effective than others. Programmes that are centrally organised and implemented by the public sector are reported to be more cost effective than those that use public funds for screening at other medical visits (convenience screening), or those that provide guidelines for healthcare professionals and the public to promote spontaneous discretionary screening. There is also substantial agreement about the cost effectiveness of other programme components. When multiple screenings are possible, studies report that they should generally begin at age 25 to 35 years and end at age 65 to 70 years, although it is important that older women have 3 normal Papanicolaou (Pap) smears before the discontinuation of screening. The interval for repeat screens that is reported to provide the best balance between cost and life-years saved is between 3 and 5 years. However, when a choice must be made between screening more women fewer times, or screening fewer women more times, most studies indicate that it is more cost effective to prioritize resources to obtain at least one screening for each woman. The screening of previously unscreened and high-risk populations has been shown to be especially cost effective. Despite this agreement, many studies report that models of the cost effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer are sensitive to a number of parameters. Changes in the attendance rate of the programme, the quality of the Pap smear, and the cost of the Pap smear can markedly change the cost effectiveness of a screening programme. Finally, this review discusses different perspectives of social choice analysis (e.g. CEA and cost-benefit analysis), when the objective is to prevent cervical cancer and the options are to screen, detect and treat, to reduce behavioural risk factors, and/or to pursue promising biological research.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗