Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

S W Fletcher

Publications and source records attributed to S W Fletcher.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Why question screening mammography for women in their forties?

Groups that do not recommend mammography for all women in their forties do so with reason. Even after seven randomized controlled trials and participation by over 170,000 women it is not clear whether screening women in this age group for breast cancer saves lives. It is clear that in contrast to older women, in women in their forties there is no effect for several years after screening begins, and an uncertain marginal effect after a decade. If an effect is present it may be owing to the fact that women move into an age group when mammography is effective. The uncertainty about mammography in younger women is strong enough that investigators from the seven trials are working to conduct overview analyses of the data from all the trials to assess better at what age breast cancer screening saves lives. There also is enough uncertainty that a trial with almost 200,000 women has begun in the United Kingdom and another one is being considered for Europe. If the answer about mammography for women in their forties is clear, why would such large new trials be started? Meanwhile, evidence exists that breast cancer screening costs a great deal, not just in dollars but in human terms. There also is increasing concern about the possibility of overdiagnosis. The financial costs primarily are owing to charges for screening mammograms. The human costs primarily are owing to false-positive readings and, if present, overdiagnosis. Ultimately, the decision to screen women in their forties for breast cancer involves a weighting of benefits (in mortality reduction) and costs (in dollars, anxiety over false-positive results, biopsy and surgery for noncancerous lesions, and overdiagnosis). Most emphasis in the debate about breast cancer screening has been on the evidence about effectiveness. But the costs are substantial. Groups that do not recommend routine screening mammography for all women in their forties require a greater standard of evidence for effectiveness of screening than those that do. Why is this so? First, there are financial considerations. When a health care intervention is recommended for every person in our society, costs mount fast. At any time, but particularly in an era of cost constraints, it is not only reasonable but incumbent on all involved in health care to look carefully at how much benefit there is for the expenditure and how strong is the scientific evidence. Second, many persons who consider prevention activities argue that there is an ethical reason.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Adult↗

Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality?

OBJECTIVE: To study readers' judgments of manuscript quality and the degree to which readers agreed with peer reviewers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Annals of Internal Medicine. SUBJECTS: One hundred thirteen consecutive manuscripts reporting original research and selected for publication. Each of two manuscript versions (one before and one after revision) was judged by two readers, randomly sampled from those who said (based on the title) that they would read the article; one peer reviewer (peer), chosen in the usual way for Annals; and one expert in clinical research methods (expert). Each judge completed an instrument that included a 10-point subjective summary grade of manuscript quality. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement on the 10-point summary grade of manuscript quality between reader-expert, reader-peer, and reader-reader. RESULTS: Readers and peers gave high grades (77% and 73% gave a grade of 5 or better, respectively), while experts were more critical (52% gave a grade of 5 or better; P < .0001). Agreement was relatively high among judge groups (in all cases, > 69%) but agreement beyond chance was poor (kappa < 0.04). One third of readers (33%) thought that the manuscript had little relevance to their work. CONCLUSION: Readers, like most peer reviewers, are generally satisfied with the quality of manuscripts but would like research articles to be more relevant to their clinical practice.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗

Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of the peer review and editorial processes on the readability of original articles. DESIGN: Comparison of manuscripts before and after the peer review and editorial processes. SETTING: Annals of Internal Medicine between March 1 and November 30, 1992. MANUSCRIPTS: One hundred one consecutive manuscripts reporting original research. MEASUREMENTS: Assessment of readability by means of two previously validated indexes: the Gunning fog index (units of readability in the fog index roughly correlate to years of education) and the Flesch reading ease score. Each manuscript was analyzed for readability and length on receipt and after it had passed through the peer review and editorial processes. Text and abstracts were analyzed similarly but separately. Mean readability scores were compared by two-tailed t tests for paired observations. RESULTS: Mean (+/- SD) initial readability scores of manuscripts and abstracts by the Gunning fog index were 17.16 +/- 1.55 and 16.65 +/- 2.80, respectively. At publication, scores were 16.85 +/- 1.42 and 15.64 +/- 2.42 (P = .0005 and P < .0001 for before-after differences, respectively). By comparison, studies of other print media showed scores of about 11 for the New York Times editorial page and about 18 for a typical legal contract. Similar changes were found for the Flesch scores. The median length of the manuscripts increased by 2.6% and that of the abstracts by 4.2% during the processes. CONCLUSIONS: The peer review and editorial processes slightly improved the readability of original articles and their abstracts, but both remained difficult to read at publication. Better readability scores may improve readership.

Manuscripts as Topic↗

Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of peer review and editing on manuscript quality. SETTING: Editorial offices of Annals of Internal Medicine. DESIGN: Masked before-after study. MANUSCRIPTS: 111 consecutive original research manuscripts accepted for publication at Annals between March 1992 and March 1993. MEASUREMENTS: We used a manuscript quality assessment tool of 34 items to evaluate the quality of the research report, not the quality of the research itself. Each item was scored on a 1 to 5 scale. Forty-four expert assessors unaware of the design or aims of the study evaluated the manuscripts, with different persons evaluating the two versions of each manuscript (before and after the editorial process). RESULTS: 33 of the 34 items changed in the direction of improvement, with the largest improvements seen in the discussion of study limitations, generalizations, use of confidence intervals, and the tone of conclusions. Overall, the percentage of items scored three or more increased by an absolute 7.3% (95% CI, 3.3% to 11.3%) from a baseline of 75%. The average item score improved by 0.23 points (CI, 0.07 to 0.39) from a baseline mean of 3.5. Manuscripts rated in the bottom 50% showed two- to threefold larger improvements than those in the top 50%, after correction for regression to the mean. CONCLUSIONS: Peer review and editing improve the quality of medical research reporting, particularly in those areas that readers rely on most heavily to decide on the importance and generalizability of the findings.

Humans↗

Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 30 years, eight major randomized controlled trials of breast cancer screening--with mammography and/or clinical breast examination--have been conducted. Results from several trials have been updated during the past year, and initial results of three other trials have been reported. PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute held an International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer in February 1993 to conduct a thorough and objective critical review of the world's most recent clinical trial data on breast cancer screening, consider the new evidence, assess the current state of knowledge, and identify issues needing further research. METHODS: Investigators representing the eight randomized controlled trials of breast cancer screening in women aged 40-74 presented published and unpublished data. Evidence relating to the effectiveness of breast cancer screening in different age groups, especially women aged 40-49, was presented. RESULTS: For women aged 40-49, randomized controlled trials consistently demonstrated no benefit from screening in the first 5-7 years after study entry. A meta-analysis of six trials found a relative risk of 1.08 (95% confidence interval = 0.85-1.39) after 7 years' follow-up. After 10-12 years of follow-up, none of four trials have found a statistically significant benefit in mortality; a combined analysis of Swedish studies showed a statistically insignificant 13% decrease in mortality at 12 years. Only one trial (Health Insurance Plan) has data beyond 12 years of follow-up, and results show a 25% decrease in mortality at 10-18 years. Statistical significance of this result is disputed, however. In women aged 50-69, all studies show mortality reductions; three of four studies show reductions of about 30% at 10-12 years after study entry. Results from two of these trials were statistically significant. Too few women over age 70 have been included in studies for adequate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For women aged 40-49, randomized controlled trials of breast cancer screening show no benefit 5-7 years after entry. At 10-12 years, benefit is uncertain and, if present, marginal; thereafter, it is unknown. For women aged 50-69, screening reduces breast cancer mortality by about a third. Currently available data for women age 70 or older are inadequate to judge the effectiveness of screening. IMPLICATIONS: Randomized trials have provided stronger scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of screening for breast cancer than for any other cancer. However, much still needs to be learned. Periodic gatherings of scientists in the field should speed the process.

Adult↗

Increasing mammography utilization: a controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the effectiveness of breast cancer screening for women older than 50 years of age, only about one third of these women in the United States receive annual mammography. PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine if a community-wide intervention could increase use of mammography screening for breast cancer. Secondary end points were determination of changes in women's knowledge and attitudes toward mammography and physicians' self-reported screening practices. METHODS: We conducted a controlled study from January 1987 through January 1990 in two eastern North Carolina communities--New Hanover County (the experimental community) and Pitt County (the control community). Before development and implementation of the intervention program in New Hanover County and after the program had been in operation for 1 year, 500 women of ages 50-74 years and all primary-care physicians in each community were interviewed by telephone. In these interviews, we determined the use of mammography for breast cancer screening and the knowledge and attitudes about it. We also established the number of screening mammograms performed in 1987 and 1989 in each county and reviewed medical records to determine the percentage of women the physicians had referred for mammograms. RESULTS: The percentage of women who reported receiving a mammogram in the previous year increased from 35% to 55% in the experimental community and from 30% to 40% in the control community (difference of differences, 10%; P = .03 after adjustment for race, education, age, and having a regular doctor; 95% confidence interval, 1%-18%). Increases were greater in New Hanover County regardless of age, race, income, and education. However, the increase was less for Black women than for White women, both overall and in most demographic subgroups. The total number of mammograms performed increased 89% in the experimental community and 45% in the control community. Women's knowledge about mammography changed little, but the intention to get a mammogram increased 30% in New Hanover County, compared with a 17% increase in Pitt County--a statistically significant difference (P < .01). Physician reports and medical record reviews in the two communities showed similar increases in the number of mammograms ordered. CONCLUSIONS: A community-wide effort to increase use of breast cancer screening was successful, but more work must be done to reach the National Cancer Institute's goal of annual mammograms for 80% of women of ages 50-74.

Age Factors↗

Improving clinical breast examination training in a medical school: a randomized controlled trial.

To evaluate a new program for teaching clinical breast examination, a class of 156 second-year medical students were randomized into an experimental group (practice and feedback on silicone breast models and women volunteers) and a control group (lecture only). During a simulated practical clinical examination routinely conducted at the end of the second year, the experimental group students used more suggested palpation techniques during a patient examination (4.6 vs 2.0; p < 0.0001) and found more simulated lumps in a silicone model (4.7 vs 4.4; p < 0.05). Practice with immediate feedback is more effective than lecture alone in teaching clinical breast examination.

Breast Neoplasms↗

The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the characteristics of good peer reviewers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of data gathered during a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The Journal of General Internal Medicine. PARTICIPANTS: 226 reviewers of 131 consecutively submitted manuscripts of original research. 201 (91%) completed the review and submitted a curriculum vitae. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The quality of each review was judged on a scale from 1 to 5 by an editor who was blinded to the identity of the reviewer. Reviewer characteristics were taken from the curricula vitae. 86 of the 201 reviewers (43%) produced good reviews (a grade of 4 or 5). Using logistic regression, the authors found that when a reviewer was less than 40 years old, from a top academic institution, well known to the editor choosing the reviewer, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript's authors, the probability that he or she would produce a good review was 87%, whereas a reviewer without any of these characteristics had a 7% probability of producing a good review. Other characteristics that were significant only on bivariate analysis included previous clinical research training, additional postgraduate degrees, and more time spent on the review. There was a negative but statistically nonsignificant association between academic rank and review quality: 37% of full professors, 39% of associate professors, and 51% of assistant professors or fellows produced good reviews (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Good peer reviewers for this journal tended to be young, from strong academic institutions, well known to the editors, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript's authors.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗

A core component of the certification examination in internal medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and test the psychometric characteristics of an examination of core content in internal medicine. DESIGN: A cross-sectional pilot test comparing the core examination with the 1988 certifying examination and two pretest examinations. SETTING: The 1988 certifying examination of the American Board of Internal Medicine. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 2,975 candidates from 8,968 candidates who took the 1988 certifying examination were given the core examination; similarly drawn samples were each given one of two pretests of traditional questions. INTERVENTIONS: A framework for developing an examination of core internal medicine questions was designed and used to develop a 92-question core test with an absolute pass/fail standard. RESULTS: Candidates answered 74% of core internal medicine questions, compared with 64%, 52%, and 53% of traditional questions on the 1988 certifying examination and the two pretests. The discriminating ability of the core internal medicine examination was lower than that of the certifying examination (r-values were 0.28 and 0.34, respectively). The pass rate was 83% for the core internal medicine examination and 57% for the certifying examination; 27% passed the core examination and failed the certifying examination; 1% passed the certifying examination and failed the core examination. CONCLUSION: Core internal medicine questions were easier than but almost as discriminating as traditional questions of the certifying examination. A small percentage of candidates passed the certifying examination but failed the core examination.

Certification↗