@article{Wegwarth2012-03-06Physi-28048,
  year={2012},
  doi={10.7326/0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00005},
  title={Do Physicians Understand Cancer Screening Statistics? : A National Survey of Primary Care Physicians in the United States},
  number={5},
  volume={156},
  issn={0003-4819},
  journal={Annals of Internal Medicine},
  pages={340--349},
  author={Wegwarth, Odette and Schwartz, Lisa M. and Woloshin, Steven and Gaissmaier, Wolfgang and Gigerenzer, Gerd}
}

<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/28048">
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2014-06-30T15:22:10Z</dcterms:available>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/28048"/>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2014-06-30T15:22:10Z</dc:date>
    <dc:creator>Gaissmaier, Wolfgang</dc:creator>
    <dc:contributor>Woloshin, Steven</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:bibliographicCitation>Annals of Internal Medicine ; 156 (2012), 5. - S. 340-349</dcterms:bibliographicCitation>
    <dcterms:issued>2012-03-06</dcterms:issued>
    <dcterms:title>Do Physicians Understand Cancer Screening Statistics? : A National Survey of Primary Care Physicians in the United States</dcterms:title>
    <dc:contributor>Wegwarth, Odette</dc:contributor>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <dc:contributor>Gaissmaier, Wolfgang</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <dc:contributor>Schwartz, Lisa M.</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>Woloshin, Steven</dc:creator>
    <dc:contributor>Gigerenzer, Gerd</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>Schwartz, Lisa M.</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Gigerenzer, Gerd</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Background: Unlike reduced mortality rates, improved survival rates and increased early detection do not prove that cancer screen- ing tests save lives. Nevertheless, these 2 statistics are often used to promote screening.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Objective: To learn whether primary care physicians understand which statistics provide evidence about whether screening saves lives.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Design: Parallel-group, randomized trial (randomization controlled for order effect only), conducted by Internet survey. (ClinicalTrials. gov registration number: NCT00981019)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Setting: National sample of U.S. primary care physicians from a research panel maintained by Harris Interactive (79% cooperation rate).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Participants: 297 physicians who practiced both inpatient and out- patient medicine were surveyed in 2010, and 115 physicians who practiced exclusively outpatient medicine were surveyed in 2011.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Intervention: Physicians received scenarios about the effect of 2 hypothetical screening tests: The effect was described as improved 5-year survival and increased early detection in one scenario and as decreased cancer mortality and increased incidence in the other.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Measurements: Physicians’ recommendation of screening and per- ception of its benefit in the scenarios and general knowledge of screening statistics.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Results: Primary care physicians were more enthusiastic about the screening test supported by irrelevant evidence (5-year survival increased from 68% to 99%) than about the test supported by relevant evidence (cancer mortality reduced from 2 to 1.6 in 1000 persons). When presented with irrelevant evidence, 69% of physi- cians recommended the test, compared with 23% when presented with relevant evidence (P &lt; 0.001). When asked general knowl- edge questions about screening statistics, many physicians did not distinguish between irrelevant and relevant screening evidence; 76% versus 81%, respectively, stated that each of these statistics proves that screening saves lives (P = 0.39). About one half (47%) of the physicians incorrectly said that finding more cases of cancer in screened as opposed to unscreened populations “proves that screening saves lives.”&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Limitation: Physicians’ recommendations for screening were based on hypothetical scenarios, not actual practice.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Conclusion: Most primary care physicians mistakenly interpreted improved survival and increased detection with screening as evi- dence that screening saves lives. Few correctly recognized that only reduced mortality in a randomized trial constitutes evidence of the benefit of screening.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>Wegwarth, Odette</dc:creator>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>