SEARCH · Search PubMed
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Shakespeare's play Measure for Measure colorfully illustrates a concept that is relevant to the testimonies given by the medical expert witness in the courtroom. The expert should not ask the jury to hold the defendant physician to a higher standard than that actually practiced by an acceptable reasonable minority of the defendant's peers under similar circumstances. Two cases are presented.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct an evidence-based technology assessment to determine whether tamoxifen and raloxifene as breast cancer risk-reduction strategies are appropriate for broad-based conventional use in clinical practice. POTENTIAL INTERVENTION: Tamoxifen and raloxifene. OUTCOME: Outcomes of interest include breast cancer incidence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and net health benefits. EVIDENCE: A comprehensive, formal literature review was conducted for tamoxifen and raloxifene on the following topics: breast cancer risk reduction; tamoxifen side effects and toxicity, including endometrial cancer risk; tamoxifen influences on nonmalignant diseases, including coronary heart disease and osteoporosis; and decision making by women at risk for breast cancer. Testimony was collected from invited experts and interested parties. VALUES: More weight was given to publications that described randomized trials. BENEFITS/HARMS/COSTS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Working Group acknowledges that a woman's decision regarding breast cancer risk-reduction strategies will depend on the importance and weight attributed to the information provided regarding both cancer and non-cancer-related risks. CONCLUSIONS: For women with a defined 5-year projected risk of breast cancer of >/= 1.66%, tamoxifen (at 20 mg/d for up to 5 years) may be offered to reduce their risk. It is premature to recommend raloxifene use to lower the risk of developing breast cancer outside of a clinical trial setting. On the basis of available information, use of raloxifene should currently be reserved for its approved indication to prevent bone loss in postmenopausal women. Conclusions are based on single-agent use of the drugs. At the present time, the effect of using tamoxifen or raloxifene with other medications (such as hormone replacement therapy), or using tamoxifen and raloxifene in combination or sequentially, has not been studied adequately. The continuing use of placebo-controlled trials in other risk-reduction trials highlights the current unanswered issues concerning the use of such interventions, especially when the influence on net health benefit remains to be determined. Breast cancer risk reduction is a rapidly evolving area. This technology assessment represents an ongoing process with existing plans to monitor and review data and to update recommendations in a timely matter. (See VALIDATION: The conclusions of the Working Group were evaluated by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee and by the ASCO Board of Directors. SPONSOR: American Society of Clinical Oncology.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct an evidence-based technology assessment to determine whether the routine use of anastrozole or any of the aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant breast cancer setting is appropriate for broad-based conventional use in clinical practice. POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS: Anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane. OUTCOMES: Outcomes of interest include breast cancer incidence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and net health benefit. EVIDENCE: A comprehensive, formal literature review was conducted for relevant topics and is detailed in the text. Testimony was collected from invited experts and interested parties. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-prescribed technology assessment procedure was followed. BENEFITS/HARMS: The ASCO panel recognizes that a woman and her physician's decision regarding adjuvant hormonal therapy is complex and will depend on the importance and weight attributed to information regarding both cancer and non-cancer-related risks and benefits. CONCLUSION: The panel was influenced by the compelling, extensive, and long-term data available on tamoxifen. Overall, the panel considers the results of the Arimidex (anastrozole) or Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial and the extensive supporting data to be very promising but insufficient to change the standard practice at this time (May 2002). A 5-year course of adjuvant tamoxifen remains the standard therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. The panel recommends that physicians discuss the available information with patients, and, in making a decision, acknowledge that treatment approaches can change over time. Individual health care providers and their patients will need to come to their own conclusions, with careful consideration of all of the available data. (Specific questions addressed by the panel are summarized in Appendix 3.) VALIDATION: The conclusions of the panel were endorsed by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee and the ASCO Board of Directors.
OBJECTIVE: To update an evidence-based technology assessment of chemoprevention strategies for breast cancer risk reduction. POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS: Tamoxifen, raloxifene, aromatase inhibition, and fenretinide. OUTCOMES: Outcomes of interest include breast cancer incidence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and net health benefit. EVIDENCE: A comprehensive, formal literature review was conducted for relevant topics. Testimony was collected from invited experts and interested parties. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) prescribed technology assessment procedure was followed. VALUES: More weight was given to published randomized trials. BENEFITS/HARMS: A woman's decision regarding breast cancer risk reduction strategies is complex and will depend on the importance and weight attributed to information regarding both cancer- and noncancer-related risks and benefits. CONCLUSIONS: For women with a defined 5-year projected breast cancer risk of > or= 1.66%, tamoxifen (at 20 mg/d for 5 years) may be offered to reduce their risk. Risk/benefit models suggest that greatest clinical benefit with least side effects is derived from use of tamoxifen in younger (premenopausal) women (who are less likely to have thromboembolic sequelae and uterine cancer), women without a uterus, and women at higher breast cancer risk. Data do not as yet suggest that tamoxifen provides an overall health benefit or increases survival. In all circumstances, tamoxifen use should be discussed as part of an informed decision-making process with careful consideration of individually calculated risks and benefits. Use of tamoxifen combined with hormone replacement therapy or use of raloxifene, any aromatase inhibitor or inactivator, or fenretinide to lower the risk of developing breast cancer is not recommended outside of a clinical trial setting. This technology assessment represents an ongoing process and recommendations will be updated in a timely matter. VALIDATION: The conclusions were endorsed by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee and the ASCO Board of Directors.
Mental health professionals with expertise in child sexual abuse (CSA) often testify as expert witnesses in court. There is significant controversy over the admissibility of this type of evidence. To be admissible, the testimony of an expert must be beyond the common knowledge of the jury and based on information generally considered to be reliable within the professional community in which it is used. To date, no empirical data have existed to allow courts to make an informed judgement as to the extent of either juror knowledge or professional acceptance of CSA data. The present study addresses this issue. Jurors and experts completed a questionnaire designed to reveal their understanding of CSA. Results indicate that experts demonstrated strong consensus on 29 of 40 items included in the questionnaire, and that relative to experts, jurors have limited knowledge of these issues. These results suggest that many of the scientific findings concerning CSA are reliable and that the information is often beyond the common knowledge of the jury. These findings argue for the use of expert testimony in select cases of child sexual abuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
In July 1865, the Harris/Burroughs trial marked the first time in a U.S. courtroom that expert medical testimony supported a plea of paroxysmal [temporary] insanity in a murder defense. Furthermore, the "medical expert" ["mad doctor"] was pitted against "common-sense" physicians. Forensic rationales and societal reactions of the 1860s appear to be remarkably similar to what happens in the 1990s. By merely changing the antebellum language, the arguments and ripostes could readily be recycled into current temporary insanity confrontations. Sociocultural aspects of the Harris/Burroughs murder case may yield clues as to the persistence of the forensic and attitudinal stances toward temporary insanity pleas by the mass media, the physicians, the legal profession and the public.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.