<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>     caa a22        4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">386356564</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">CHVBK</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20180307111855.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="007">cr unu---uuuuu</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">161130e198907  xx      s     000 0 eng  </controlfield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">10.1017/S0266462300007480</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">S0266462300007480</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">pii</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">(NATIONALLICENCE)cambridge-10.1017/S0266462300007480</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Skrabanek</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Petr</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">University of Dublin</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Mass Mammography: The Time for Reappraisal</subfield>
   <subfield code="h">[Elektronische Daten]</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">[Petr Skrabanek]</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Of the four randomized controlled trials of mass mammography completed to date, the New York HIP trial used obsolete technology and was not designed to assess mammography in the absence of physical examination; the Swedish Two-County trial had serious methodological flaws; the U.K. trial was incompletely documented but showed no significant benefit; and the Malmö trial, which was perfect in design and execution, showed no benefit. Paradoxicially, with each successive trial and an increasing sophistication of mammography, the benefit of screening was becoming not greater but less. This may be summarized by comparing the number of women who would have to be offered mammography for one breast cancer death prevented or postponed in the respective trials: 5,000 in the HIP trial, 13,000 in the Two-County trial, 18,000 in the U.K. trial, and 68,000 in the Malmä trial. The enthusiasts in favor of mass mammography have created an atmosphere of false optimism. They have not informed the public about the very small potential benefit nor about the risks associated with screening, especially the risks of false positive diagnoses and of unnecessary surgical operations. This is an unacceptable situation, and the ethical vacuum in which population screening takes place needs to be filled with guidelines to protect women who are &quot;targeted” for screening.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="t">International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Cambridge University Press</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">5/3(1989-07), 423-430</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0266-4623</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">5:3&lt;423</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">1989</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">5</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">THC</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462300007480</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="908" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="D">1</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">research-article</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">jats</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">856</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">40</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462300007480</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">100</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Skrabanek</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Petr</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">University of Dublin</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">773</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">0-</subfield>
   <subfield code="t">International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Cambridge University Press</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">5/3(1989-07), 423-430</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0266-4623</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">5:3&lt;423</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">1989</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">5</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">THC</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="900" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="b">CC0</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="898" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">BK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">XK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">XK010000</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="949" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="F">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">NL-cambridge</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
