Prävention muss effizienter werden

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Der Begriff „Prävention“ wird mit unterschiedlichen Bedeutungen verwendet. Fehler können vermieden werden, indem unterschiedliche Inhalte auch mit unterschiedlichen Begriffen bezeichnet werden. Diese Fehler beziehen sich auf fünf verschiedene Dimensionen wie Zielpopulation, Endpunkt sowie Methoden zum Screening, Diagnostik und Therapie. Valide Information lässt sich durch Präventionsstrategien nur gewinnen, wenn in allen fünf Dimensionen angemessene Parameter gewählt werden.

Abstract

The term „prevention“ is used with several different meanings. Mistakes can be avoided by using different word for different contents. In addition to clear definitions the most frequent forms of bias have to be avoided. These forms are related to the five dimensions such as targets and endpoints as well as methods of screening, diagnostic, and finally treatment. Unless the appropriate items are selected in all five dimensions the results of the prevention strategy will not provide valid information.

• Literatur

• 1 Barocas DA, Mallin K, Graves AJ et al. The effect of the United States Preventive Services Task Force grade D recommendation against screening for prostate cancer on incident prostate cancer diagnoses in the US. J Urol 2015; DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.075.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Bedford RL, Lourens SG, Lynch CF et al. Utility of deathcertificate data in predicting cancer incidence. Am J Ind Med 2014; 57: 153-162
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Blome C, Augustin M. Measuring change in quality of life: bias in prospective and retrospective evaluation. Value Health 2015; 18: 110-115
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Gupta N, Bharti B, Singhi S et al. Errors in filling WHO death certificate in children: lessons from 1251 death certificates. J Trop Pediatr 2014; 60: 74-78
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Hinz A, Finck Barboza C, Zenger M et al. Response shift in the assessment of anxiety, depression and perceived health in urologic cancer patients: an individual perspective. Eur J Cancer Care 2011; 20: 601-609
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2: e124
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Isik S. Prüfung der Validität von wissenschaftlichen Studien zum Glaukom-Screening. Dissertation; Ulm: 2015
  Google Scholar
• 8 Ittner D. Validität der Empfehlungen zur Prävention von Darmkrebs. Dissertation; Ulm: 2011
  Google Scholar
• 9 Kamga Wambo GO. Validität der wissenschaftlichen Publikationen, mit welchen die Behandlung des Kolonkarzinoms in Leitlinien begründet wird. Dissertation, Universität Ulm; 2016
  Google Scholar
• 10 Kaplan RM, Irvin VL. Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0132382
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Lafrance JP, Rahme E, Iqbal S et al. Magnitude of discordance between registry data and death certificate when evaluating leading causes of death in dialysis patients. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13: 51
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Matosevic R. Überlegungen zur Spezifität des Endpunkts bei Projekten sekundären Prävention maligner Erkrankungen. Dissertation; Ulm: 2016
  Google Scholar
• 13 Mukhtar RA, Wong JM, Esserman LJ. Preventing overdiagnosis and overtreatment: Just the next step in the evolution of breast cancer care. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2015; 13: 737-743
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK). Familial Breast Cancer: Classification and Care of People at Risk of Familial Breast Cancer and Management of Breast Cancer and Related Risks in People with a Family History of Breast Cancer. Cardiff (UK): National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK); 2013
  Google Scholar
• 15 Pennec S, Monnier A, Pontone S, Aubry R. End-of-life medical decisions in France: a death certificate follow-up survey 5 years after the 2005 act of parliament on patients‘ rights and end of life. BMC Palliat Care. 2012; 11: 25
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Porzsolt F. Präventionsgesetz: Vor allem Glaube und Hoffnung, zu wenig Liebe. Welt der Krankenversicherung 2015; 5: 121-122
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Porzsolt F. Sicherheitsspezifische Maßnahmen zur Einbruchskriminalität. Reale und Gefühlte Sicherheit. In: Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung (Hrsg): Innere Sicherheit und Einbruchskriminalität. Politische Studien 464. München 2015; 66: 32-43
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Porzsolt F, Rocha NG, Toledo-Arruda AC et al. Efficacy and effectiveness trials have different goals, use different tools, and generate different messages. Pragm Observat Res 2015; 6: 47-54
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Printz C. NCI group urges the medical community to address the increasing problem of cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Cancer 2013; 119: 4213-4214
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Randall B. Death certification: a primer. Part I--an introduction to the death certificate. S D Med 2014; 67: 196-199
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Robbins JA. Commentary: death certificate reporting needs to be fixed. J Public Health Policy 2012; 33: 215-217
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Rösch MC. Entwicklung eines Verfahrens zur Evaluierung von Screening-Studien anhand einer vielbeachteten Arbeit zum Lungenkarzinom-Screening aus dem Jahre 2011. Dissertation; Ulm: 2016
  Google Scholar
• 23 Seuffer F. Prostatakarzinomscreening mittels PSA-Bestimmung. Validität der wissenschaftlichen Publikationen. Dissertation; Ulm: 2016
  Google Scholar
• 24 Smith-Bindman R, Kerlikowske K, Gebretsadik T, Newman J. Is screening mammography effective in elderly women?. Am J Med 2000; 108: 112-119
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Temkin SM. „Less is more:“ The harms of overtreatment in early ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 137: 191-192
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Welch GH, Gorski DH, Albertsen PC. Trends in metastatic breast and prostate cancer – Lessons in cancer dynamics. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1685-1687
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar