Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Freedman, D. A
Right arrow Articles by Robins, J. M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Freedman, D. A
Right arrow Articles by Robins, J. M
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 33, Number 1, pp. 69-73
IJE vol.33 no.1 © International Epidemiological Association 2004; all rights reserved.

Point-Counterpoint

Rejoinder

David A Freedman, Diana B Petitti and James M Robins

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

We reviewed1 the critique of mammography2–5 and much of the underlying technical literature. We found that the critique depended on misreadings of the data and the literature. The clinical trials of mammography, although no doubt imperfect, show that screening saves lives. Other reviewers concur, including Nyström et al.,6 Health Council of the Netherlands,7 US Preventive Services Task Force,8,9 and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).10 According to IARC, for example:

The possibility of the introduction of bias into the results of the studies of screening with mammography alone by a range of methodological factors was considered. The available evidence suggested that none, if any, bias was present that could have had a sufficiently large effect to affect the overall rate ratios appreciably. (ref. 10, p. 174)

There is sufficient evidence for the efficacy of screening women 50–69 years by mammography as the sole screening modality in . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   Appendix: Two statistical issues
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
P. C Gotzsche
Misleading quotations and other errors persist in rejoinder on breast cancer screening
Int. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2004; 33(6): 1404 - 1404.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
D. A Freedman, D. B Petitti, and J. M Robins
Authors' response
Int. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2004; 33(6): 1405 - 1406.
[Full Text] [PDF]