When evidence says no: gynaecologists' reasons for (not) recommending ineffective ovarian cancer screening.
作者信息
Wegwarth Odette, Pashayan Nora
机构信息
Center for Adaptive Rationality/Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Max-Planck-Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
出版信息
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Jun;29(6):521-524. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009854. Epub 2019 Nov 8.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
When evidence says no: gynaecologists' reasons for (not) recommending ineffective ovarian cancer screening.当证据表明不行时：妇科医生不推荐无效卵巢癌筛查的原因
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Jun;29(6):521-524. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009854. Epub 2019 Nov 8.
2
Knowledgeability, Attitude and Behavior of Primary Care Providers Towards Oral Cancer: a Pilot Study.基层医疗服务提供者对口腔癌的认知、态度和行为：一项试点研究。
J Cancer Educ. 2018 Apr;33(2):359-364. doi: 10.1007/s13187-016-1084-4.
3
US gynecologists' estimates and beliefs regarding ovarian cancer screening's effectiveness 5 years after release of the PLCO evidence.美国妇科医生在发布 PLCO 证据 5 年后对卵巢癌筛查效果的估计和看法。
Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 21;8(1):17181. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35585-z.
4
Loyalty conflicts in medical practice. A comparative study of general practitioners', paediatricians' and gynaecologists' assessments of three cases.
Scand J Prim Health Care. 1998 Sep;16(3):135-40. doi: 10.1080/028134398750003070.
5
Ovarian Cancer Knowledge in Women and Providers Following Education with Inside Knowledge Campaign Materials.在使用“深入了解”活动材料进行教育后，女性和医疗服务提供者对卵巢癌的认识
J Cancer Educ. 2018 Dec;33(6):1285-1293. doi: 10.1007/s13187-017-1245-0.
6
Vignette-based study of ovarian cancer screening: do U.S. physicians report adhering to evidence-based recommendations?基于病例的卵巢癌筛查研究：美国医生是否报告遵循基于证据的建议？
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Feb 7;156(3):182-94. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-3-201202070-00006.
7
Adherence of Primary Care Physicians to Evidence-Based Recommendations to Reduce Ovarian Cancer Mortality.初级保健医生对降低卵巢癌死亡率的循证建议的依从性。
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2016 Mar;25(3):235-41. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2015.5735.
8
Screening for Ovarian Cancer-More Hype Than Hope?卵巢癌筛查——炒作大于希望？
Am Fam Physician. 2016 Jun 1;93(11):906.
9
Knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to breast cancer screening among female health care professionals: a cross sectional study.女性医护专业人员乳腺癌筛查相关的知识、态度和实践：一项横断面研究。
BMC Womens Health. 2019 Oct 22;19(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0819-x.
10
Family physicians' perspectives on ovarian cancer.家庭医生对卵巢癌的看法。
Cancer Prev Control. 1999 Feb;3(1):61-7.
引用本文的文献
1
The Evidence Effect: How Fact Boxes Shift Perceptions of Lung Cancer Screening in Austrian Medical Practice.证据效应：事实框如何改变奥地利医疗实践中对肺癌筛查的认知。
Cancer Med. 2024 Dec;13(23):e70453. doi: 10.1002/cam4.70453.
2
General practitioners' risk literacy and real-world prescribing of potentially hazardous drugs: a cross-sectional study.全科医生的风险素养与潜在危害药物的实际处方：一项横断面研究。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2024 Sep 19;33(10):634-641. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016979.
3
[Are the assessments of individual out-of-pocket health services of the IGeL-Monitor in line with clinical guidelines?].[IGeL监测器对个人自付医疗服务的评估是否符合临床指南？]
Gesundheitswesen. 2023 Dec;85(12):1192-1199. doi: 10.1055/a-2158-8869. Epub 2023 Dec 11.
4
Educating physicians on strong opioids by descriptive versus simulated-experience formats: a randomized controlled trial.描述性与模拟体验格式对医师进行强阿片类药物教育的效果比较：一项随机对照试验。
BMC Med Educ. 2022 Oct 26;22(1):741. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03797-7.
5
Educating Pharmacists on the Risks of Strong Opioids With Descriptive and Simulated Experience Risk Formats: A Randomized Controlled Trial.采用描述性和模拟体验风险形式对药剂师进行强阿片类药物风险教育：一项随机对照试验。
MDM Policy Pract. 2021 Sep 27;6(2):23814683211042832. doi: 10.1177/23814683211042832. eCollection 2021 Jul-Dec.
6
Experiencing the risk of overutilising opioids among patients with chronic non-cancer pain in ambulatory care (ERONA): the protocol of an exploratory, randomised controlled trial.门诊护理中慢性非癌性疼痛患者阿片类药物过度使用风险研究（ERONA）：一项探索性随机对照试验方案
BMJ Open. 2020 Sep 6;10(9):e037642. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037642.
本文引用的文献
1
US gynecologists' estimates and beliefs regarding ovarian cancer screening's effectiveness 5 years after release of the PLCO evidence.美国妇科医生在发布 PLCO 证据 5 年后对卵巢癌筛查效果的估计和看法。
Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 21;8(1):17181. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35585-z.
2
Screening for Ovarian Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.卵巢癌筛查：美国预防服务工作组推荐声明。
JAMA. 2018 Feb 13;319(6):588-594. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21926.
3
Can facts trump unconditional trust? Evidence-based information halves the influence of physicians' non-evidence-based cancer screening recommendations.事实能胜过无条件的信任吗？基于证据的信息会使医生基于非证据的癌症筛查建议的影响力减半。
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 23;12(8):e0183024. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183024. eCollection 2017.
4
Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial.英国卵巢癌筛查协作试验（UKCTOCS）中的卵巢癌筛查与死亡率：一项随机对照试验
Lancet. 2016 Mar 5;387(10022):945-956. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01224-6. Epub 2015 Dec 17.
5
Contact between doctors and the pharmaceutical industry, their perceptions, and the effects on prescribing habits.医生与制药行业之间的联系、他们的看法以及对处方习惯的影响。
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 16;9(10):e110130. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110130. eCollection 2014.
6
A decade of reversal: an analysis of 146 contradicted medical practices.十年逆转：146 项被推翻的医学实践分析。
Mayo Clin Proc. 2013 Aug;88(8):790-8. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.05.012. Epub 2013 Jul 18.
7
Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States.医生了解癌症筛查统计数据吗？对美国初级保健医生的全国性调查。
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Mar 6;156(5):340-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00005.
8
Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial.筛查对卵巢癌死亡率的影响：前列腺癌、肺癌、结直肠癌和卵巢癌（PLCO）癌症筛查随机对照试验。
JAMA. 2011 Jun 8;305(22):2295-303. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.766.
9
Deceiving numbers: survival rates and their impact on doctors' risk communication.欺骗性的数据：生存率及其对医生风险沟通的影响。
Med Decis Making. 2011 May-Jun;31(3):386-94. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10391469. Epub 2010 Dec 29.
10
Why physicians favor use of percutaneous coronary intervention to medical therapy: a focus group study.医生为何更倾向于使用经皮冠状动脉介入治疗而非药物治疗：一项焦点小组研究。
J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Sep;23(9):1458-63. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0706-x. Epub 2008 Jul 10.
Zotero 插件