Lung Cancer Screening Websites—Balanced Information vs Advertisement
Menée aux Etats-Unis à partir de l'analyse du contenu de 162 sites internet de 81 centres médicaux universitaires et de 81 autres centres médicaux, cette étude évalue l'exhaustivité des informations présentées sur les bénéfices et risques potentiels associés aux examens de dépistage du cancer du poumon ainsi que sur les démarches recommandées pour la prise de décision
In this issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, Clark et al report on the quality of lung cancer screening program websites. A total of 162 lung cancer screening websites presented benefit far more than they presented harm (98% presented any benefit vs 48% presented any harm). Apparently only 44% actually quantified benefit, in most cases doing so using relative risk reductions without the base rate (ie, benefit presented as a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality without defining “20% of what” or giving the absolute risk reduction, which is on the order of approximately 3 fewer deaths per 1000 people at high risk screened over 7 years). This format undermines informed decision-making because the format is confusing for both patients and health care professionals, and is known to exaggerate findings. Less than half (44%) reported the harms of false positives, radiation exposure, incidental findings, or the possibility of overdiagnosis.
JAMA Internal Medicine , éditorial, 2019