Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMauri, D.en
dc.contributor.authorKamposioras, K.en
dc.contributor.authorProiskos, A.en
dc.contributor.authorXilomenos, A.en
dc.contributor.authorPeponi, C.en
dc.contributor.authorDambrosio, M.en
dc.contributor.authorZacharias, G.en
dc.contributor.authorKoukourakis, G.en
dc.contributor.authorPentheroudakis, Georgeen
dc.contributor.authorPavlidis, Nicholasen
dc.creatorMauri, D.en
dc.creatorKamposioras, K.en
dc.creatorProiskos, A.en
dc.creatorXilomenos, A.en
dc.creatorPeponi, C.en
dc.creatorDambrosio, M.en
dc.creatorZacharias, G.en
dc.creatorKoukourakis, G.en
dc.creatorPentheroudakis, Georgeen
dc.creatorPavlidis, Nicholasen
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-22T09:54:00Z
dc.date.available2018-06-22T09:54:00Z
dc.date.issued2006
dc.identifier.urihttps://gnosis.library.ucy.ac.cy/handle/7/42144
dc.description.abstractObjective: To assess whether the use of chest radiography for screening changes over time. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources: MEDLINE, ISI, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and handsearching of selected journals. Review Methods: We evaluated whether the proportion of primary care physicians using chest radiography to screen for (1) malignancy in the general asymptomatic population, (2) malignancy in a high-risk subgroup, (3) any disease in the general population, and (4) any disease in a high-risk subgroup changed over time, using random-effects meta-regression analysis. Adjustments for the availability of national guidelines were also performed. Results: Overall, 10% to 90% of primary care physicians reported using chest x-ray for screening. In unadjusted analyses, the proportion of physicians using chest radiography for cancer screening in the general population tended to increase by 0.9% per year (8 studies, n = 4313). The corresponding annual changes were -2.9% for cancer screening in high-risk subgroups (8 studies, n = 2784) and -0.4% regarding screening for any disease in the population (7 studies, n = 2627). No meta-regressions were run for outcome (4) (only 1 study). In the adjusted analyses, there was a decreasing nonsignificant trend for all outcomes. Conclusions: Despite formal recommendations, many physicians still use chest x-ray for screening, with their number decreasing slowly over time. This practice may be harmful because the positive predictive value of chest radiography is low, and further evaluation of false-positive findings might be associated with increased cost and risk from additional diagnostic or therapeutic interventions.en
dc.language.isoengen
dc.sourceAmerican Journal of Managed Careen
dc.subjectCanceren
dc.subjectHumanen
dc.subjectHumansen
dc.subjectPredictive value of testsen
dc.subjectPriority journalen
dc.subjectClinical trialen
dc.subjectReviewen
dc.subjectSystematic reviewen
dc.subjectClinical practiceen
dc.subjectMeta analysisen
dc.subjectRisk assessmenten
dc.subjectHigh risk populationen
dc.subjectThorax radiographyen
dc.subjectDiagnostic valueen
dc.subjectFalse positive resulten
dc.subjectHealth care costen
dc.subjectMass screeningen
dc.subjectPhysician's practice patternsen
dc.subjectPredictive validityen
dc.subjectPrimary health careen
dc.subjectRadiographyen
dc.subjectScreeningen
dc.subjectThoracicen
dc.titleOld habits die hard: Chest radiography for screening purposes in primary careen
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.description.volume12
dc.description.issue11
dc.description.startingpage650
dc.description.endingpage656
dc.author.facultyΙατρική Σχολή / Medical School
dc.author.departmentΙατρική Σχολή / Medical School
dc.type.uhtypeArticleen
dc.contributor.orcidPavlidis, Nicholas [0000-0002-2195-9961]
dc.contributor.orcidPentheroudakis, George [0000-0002-6632-2462]
dc.gnosis.orcid0000-0002-2195-9961
dc.gnosis.orcid0000-0002-6632-2462


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record