This page was created on March 3rd, 2015 by Peter Eby.
We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The study states "Screening biennially from ages 50 to 69 years achieved a median 16.5% (range, 15% to 23%) reduction in breast cancer deaths versus no screening. Initiating biennial screening at age 40 years (vs. 50 years) reduced mortality by an additional 3% (range, 1% to 6%), consumed more resources, and yielded more false-positive results." Taking one small bit rather than the main summary is not really reasonable IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC) There isn't always room in the abstract for all the important results. Many important results are present in the body of the paper. IMO, restricting the wiki page to text found only in the abstract is a disservice to the science. In addition, the summary statement quoted above describes the incremental benefit of adding screening for women from 40-49 to an already existing screening program of women 50-69. So the total is 19.5% (16.5% + 3%) decrease in deaths from breast cancer for screening women 40-69 biennially. Would it be ok for the page to say: "Screening women 40-69 every other year decreases deaths from breast cancer by 19.5%" Thanks. Peter Eby ( talk) 23:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This page was created on March 3rd, 2015 by Peter Eby.
We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The study states "Screening biennially from ages 50 to 69 years achieved a median 16.5% (range, 15% to 23%) reduction in breast cancer deaths versus no screening. Initiating biennial screening at age 40 years (vs. 50 years) reduced mortality by an additional 3% (range, 1% to 6%), consumed more resources, and yielded more false-positive results." Taking one small bit rather than the main summary is not really reasonable IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC) There isn't always room in the abstract for all the important results. Many important results are present in the body of the paper. IMO, restricting the wiki page to text found only in the abstract is a disservice to the science. In addition, the summary statement quoted above describes the incremental benefit of adding screening for women from 40-49 to an already existing screening program of women 50-69. So the total is 19.5% (16.5% + 3%) decrease in deaths from breast cancer for screening women 40-69 biennially. Would it be ok for the page to say: "Screening women 40-69 every other year decreases deaths from breast cancer by 19.5%" Thanks. Peter Eby ( talk) 23:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)