4.7 Article

Community-based multiple screening model - Design, implementation, and analysis of 42,387 participants Taiwan community-based integrated screening group

期刊

CANCER
卷 100, 期 8, 页码 1734-1743

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20171

关键词

multiple disease screening; community-based integrated screening; cancer screening; chronic disease screening; comorbidity; metabolic syndrome

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND. Multiple disease screening may have several advantages over single disease screening because of the economics of scale, with the high yield of detecting asymptomatic diseases, the identification of multiple diseases or risk factors simultaneously, the enhancement of the attendance rate, and the efficiency of follow-up. METHODS. An integrated model of community-based multiple screening was designed and conducted between 1999 and 2001 in Keelung, Taiwan. The authors used a Papanicolaou (Pap) smear screening program as a base to integrate other screening regimens encompassing four other neoplastic diseases and three nonneoplastic chronic diseases. Screening methods, the interscreening interval, and the follow-up for each screening regimen were designed based on evidence-based literature and current national screening policy. RESULTS. A total of 42,387 subjects participated in the screening activities. A 25% increase in the attendance rate for Pap smear screening was demonstrated after the introduction of multiple disease screening programs. At the first screen, this program yielded a total of 677 asymptomatic neoplasms (16.0 per 1000), including a large proportion of precancerous lesions and small presymptomatic tumors without lymph node involvement. The association between the occurrence of neoplasm and the presence of comorbid nonneoplastic chronic disease was found to be statistically significant (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-1.94 [P < 0.05]). The authors also identified 5314 subjects with metabolic syndrome who were at a greater risk for colorectal and oral neoplasias.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据