You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 156 No. 10, 27 May 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Special Article
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (27)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Cancer Screening and Informed Patient Discussions

Andrew M. D. Wolf; Daniel M. Becker

Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(10):1069-1072.


Abstract

While screening for asymptomatic cancer has become one of the principal clinical activities of primary care physicians, patients are generally not involved directly in screening decisions. To help physicians better communicate the potential benefits and burdens of cancer screening, this article concisely presents information necessary for patients to make a reasoned decision as to whether to proceed with screening: the probability of developing cancer, the operating characteristics of available screening tests, the likelihood that screening will result in an improved outcome for the individual patient, and the potential burdens associated with screening. Screening tests for breast, colorectal, cervical, and prostate cancers are reviewed, including mammography, clinical breast examination, fecal occult blood testing, Papanicolaou smear, digital rectal examination, and prostate-specific antigen. Better communication about cancer screening will promote shared decision making—a central tenet of the physician-patient relationship.

(Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:1069-1072)




Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Reducing Cancer Disparities for Minorities: A Multidisciplinary Research Agenda to Improve Patient Access to Health Systems, Clinical Trials, and Effective Cancer Therapy
Bruner et al.
JCO 2006;24:2209-2215.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Women's Preferences for Doctor's Involvement in Decisions about Mammography Screening
Chamot et al.
Med Decis Making 2004;24:379-385.
ABSTRACT  

Seniors' Preferences for Cancer Screening and Medication Use Based on Absolute Risk Reduction
Murphy et al.
Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 2002;57:M100-105.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma
Chamot and Perneger
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2001;55:799-803.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence-based Radiology: A New Approach to the Practice of Radiology
The Evidence-Based Radiology Working Group
Radiology 2001;220:566-575.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Should All People over the Age of 50 Have Regular Fecal Occult-Blood Tests?
Simon et al.
NEJM 1998;338:1151-1155.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1996 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.