| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Boyle, Breidge, et al.
(author)
-
Estimating Global Burden of Disease due to congenital anomaly : An analysis of European data
- 2018
-
In: Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition. - : BMJ. - 1359-2998 .- 1468-2052. ; 103:1, s. 22-28
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective To validate the estimates of Global Burden of Disease (GBD) due to congenital anomaly for Europe by comparing infant mortality data collected by EUROCAT registries with the WHO Mortality Database, and by assessing the significance of stillbirths and terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (TOPFA) in the interpretation of infant mortality statistics. Design, setting and outcome measures EUROCAT is a network of congenital anomaly registries collecting data on live births, fetal deaths from 20 weeks' gestation and TOPFA. Data from 29 registries in 19 countries were analysed for 2005-2009, and infant mortality (deaths of live births at age <1 year) compared with the WHO Mortality Database. Eight EUROCAT countries were excluded from further analysis on the basis that this comparison showed poor ascertainment of survival status. Results According to WHO, 17%-42% of infant mortality was attributed to congenital anomaly. In 11 EUROCAT countries, average infant mortality with congenital anomaly was 1.1 per 1000 births, with higher rates where TOPFA is illegal (Malta 3.0, Ireland 2.1). The rate of stillbirths with congenital anomaly was 0.6 per 1000. The average TOPFA prevalence was 4.6 per 1000, nearly three times more prevalent than stillbirths and infant deaths combined. TOPFA also impacted on the prevalence of postneonatal survivors with non-lethal congenital anomaly. Conclusions By excluding TOPFA and stillbirths from GBD years of life lost (YLL) estimates, GBD underestimates the burden of disease due to congenital anomaly, and thus declining YLL over time may obscure lack of progress in primary, secondary and tertiary prevention.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Carlsson, Sigrid V., et al.
(author)
-
Estimating the harms and benefits of prostate cancer screening as used in common practice versus recommended good practice : A microsimulation screening analysis
- 2016
-
In: Cancer. - : Wiley. - 0008-543X .- 1097-0142. ; 122:21, s. 3386-3393
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and concomitant treatment can be implemented in several ways. The authors investigated how the net benefit of PSA screening varies between common practice versus “good practice.”. METHODS: Microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) was used to evaluate the effect on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) if 4 recommendations were followed: limited screening in older men, selective biopsy in men with elevated PSA, active surveillance for low-risk tumors, and treatment preferentially delivered at high-volume centers. Outcomes were compared with a base model in which annual screening started at ages 55 to 69 years and were simulated using data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. RESULTS: In terms of QALYs gained compared with no screening, for 1000 screened men who were followed over their lifetime, recommended good practice led to 73 life-years (LYs) and 74 QALYs gained compared with 73 LYs and 56 QALYs for the base model. In contrast, common practice led to 78 LYs gained but only 19 QALYs gained, for a greater than 75% relative reduction in QALYs gained from unadjusted LYs gained. The poor outcomes for common practice were influenced predominantly by the use of aggressive treatment for men with low-risk disease, and PSA testing in older men also strongly reduced potential QALY gains. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used PSA screening and treatment practices are associated with little net benefit. Following a few straightforward clinical recommendations, particularly greater use of active surveillance for low-risk disease and reducing screening in older men, would lead to an almost 4-fold increase in the net benefit of prostate cancer screening. Cancer 2016;122:3386–3393.
|
|
| 5. |
- Hakama, Matti, et al.
(author)
-
Design-corrected variation by centre in mortality reduction in the ERSPC randomised prostate cancer screening trial.
- 2017
-
In: Journal of medical screening. - : SAGE Publications. - 1475-5793 .- 0969-1413. ; 24:2, s. 98-103
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- To calculate design-corrected estimates of the effect of screening on prostate cancer mortality by centre in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).The ERSPC has shown a 21% reduction in prostate cancer mortality in men invited to screening with follow-up truncated at 13 years. Centres either used pre-consent randomisation (effectiveness design) or post-consent randomisation (efficacy design).In six centres (three effectiveness design, three efficacy design) with follow-up until the end of 2010, or maximum 13 years, the effect of screening was estimated as both effectiveness (mortality reduction in the target population) and efficacy (reduction in those actually screened).The overall crude prostate cancer mortality risk ratio in the intervention arm vs control arm for the six centres was 0.79 ranging from a 14% increase to a 38% reduction. The risk ratio was 0.85 in centres with effectiveness design and 0.73 in those with efficacy design. After correcting for design, overall efficacy was 27%, 24% in pre-consent and 29% in post-consent centres, ranging between a 12% increase and a 52% reduction.The estimated overall effect of screening in attenders (efficacy) was a 27% reduction in prostate cancer mortality at 13 years' follow-up. The variation in efficacy between centres was greater than the range in risk ratio without correction for design. The centre-specific variation in the mortality reduction could not be accounted for by the randomisation method.
|
|
