论文部分内容阅读
In most developed countries women age mostly over 50 are offered periodic mammography to detect early tumours in their breast.The justification for this intervention is derived from around 10 large randomised trials of this service (which commenced in the 1960s) compared with no such service.The outcomes compared are mortality rates from breast cancer in the two groups.Some experts interpret these trials to suggest that the mortality reduction is around 40%, which of course if true could justify the universal provision of this service.Since it is a service for healthy women achieving adequate compliance could be problematic.The evidence and its public health implications will be reviewed A more rigorous interpretation of this evidence gives rise a more conservative effect, since it has been argued that many of these trial are biased for several reasons to do with the nature of the control group and the method of discerning the outcome, as well as the randomization process.Moreover as the information has accumulated it has become increasingly obvious that the extent of overdiagnosis of tumours, which would cause no problem in a womans life, and the consequent treatment, represent a problem about which too little is said.In other words the information generally offered to women has not kept up to date with scientific information, as it has developed.In the end the argument must be that women can make up their own minds about suitability of mammography for them, but with complete and up to information about the benefits and risks.This paper will review the evidence and the information provision for mammography and argue that mammography is not the panacea it is widely held to be.