International Journal of Epidemiology 2001;30:946-947
© International Epidemiological Association 2001
Reiterations |
Commentary: On the report of the South-East London Screening Study
Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
The report of the South-East London Screening Study1 neatly exemplifies the research paradox described recently by Stephen Jay Gould: ‘... straightforward facts enshrouded in difficult or ambiguous meanings'.2 In a randomized controlled trial of people, baseline ages 40–64 years, from two South-East London general practices, two multifactor screenings 2 years apart (1967–1968 and 1969–1970) were associated with no significant differences between Screened and Control groups in 5-year incidence of disease morbidity or in 9-year rates of GP consultations, hospital admissions, certified sickness work absenteeism, or mortality. Straightforward data! But what do they mean? What conclusions can be drawn from them? Based on the last sentence of the report, the authors are apparently sure they have the answer: down with multiphasic screening of the middle-aged in general practice. But for this commentator, Gould's words fit: ‘straightforward facts enshrouded in difficult or ambiguous meanings'.2
Why? The nub of the problem is embedded
References