The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
All-Cause Mortality in Randomized Trials of Cancer Screening
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most widely accepted end point in randomized cancer screening trials is disease-specific mortality. The validity of this end point, however, rests on the assumption that cause of death can be determined accurately. An alternative end point is all-cause mortality, which depends only on the accurate ascertainment of deaths and when they occur. We compared disease-specific and all-cause mortality in published randomized cancer-screening trials to indirectly assess the validity of the disease-specific mortality end point. METHODS: We examined all 12 published randomized trials of cancer screening for which both end points were available (seven of mammography, three of fecal occult blood detection, and two of chest x-ray screening for lung cancer). For each randomized trial, we subtracted disease-specific mortality observed in the screened group from that observed in the control group and all-cause mortality in the screened group from that in the control group. We then compared the differences in these two mortality measures. RESULTS: In five of the 12 trials, differences in the two mortality rates went in opposite directions, suggesting opposite effects of screening. In four of these five trials, disease-specific mortality was lower in the screened group than in the control group, whereas all-cause mortality was the same or higher. In two of the remaining seven trials, the mortality rate differences were in the same direction but their magnitudes were inconsistent; i.e., the difference in all-cause mortality exceeded the disease-specific mortality in the control group. Thus, results of seven of the 12 trials were inconsistent in their direction or magnitude. CONCLUSION: Major inconsistencies were identified in disease-specific and all-cause mortality end points in randomized cancer screening trials. Because all-cause mortality is not affected by bias in classifying the cause of death, it should be examined when interpreting the results of randomized cancer-screening trials.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Effect of carvedilol on survival in severe chronic heart failure
Packer, M., Coats, A. J. S., Fowler, M. B., Katus, H. A., Krum, H., Mohacsi, P., Rouleau, J. L., Tendera, M., Castaigne, A., Roecker, E. B., et al. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200105313442201 · Cited by 3,093
Cited by
Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial
de Koning, H. J., van der Aalst, C. M., de Jong, P. A., Scholten, E. T., Nackaerts, K., Heuvelmans, M. A., Lammers, J.-W. J., Weenink, C., Yousaf-Khan, U., Horeweg, N., et al. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1911793 · Cited by 3,624
Andriole, G. L., Crawford, E. D., Grubb, R. L., Buys, S. S., Chia, D., Church, T. R., Fouad, M. N., Isaacs, C., Kvale, P. A., Reding, D. J., et al. (2012) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djr500 · Cited by 1,121
Tabar, L., Yen, M.-F., Vitak, B., Chen, H.-H. T., Smith, R. A., & Duffy, S. W. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13143-1 · Cited by 742
Weight, Weight Gain, and Survival After Breast Cancer Diagnosis
Kroenke, C. H., Chen, W. Y., Rosner, B., & Holmes, M. D. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.01.079 · Cited by 670
Effectiveness of the korean national cancer screening program in reducing gastric cancer mortality
Jun, J. K., Choi, K. S., Lee, H.-Y., Suh, M., Park, B., Song, S. H., Jung, K. W., Lee, C. W., Choi, I. J., Park, E.-C., et al. (2017) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.01.029 · Cited by 570
Metadata
- Authors
- Black, W. C.
- Venue
- CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-02-06
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 167-173
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2120488811
- Cited by
- 390
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: All-Cause Mortality in Randomized Trials of Cancer Screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/94.3.167
- The paper
- Black, W. C. (2002). All-Cause Mortality in Randomized Trials of Cancer Screening. CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/94.3.167
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.