Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/19538Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Kyrgiou, M. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Tsoumpou, I. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Martin-Hirsch, P. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Arbyn, M. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Prendiville, W. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Koliopoulos, G. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Dalkalitsis, N. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Stamatopoulos, P. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Paraskevaidis, E. | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2015-11-24T19:00:28Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2015-11-24T19:00:28Z | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0250-7005 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/19538 | - |
| dc.rights | Default Licence | - |
| dc.subject | Adult | en |
| dc.subject | Aged | en |
| dc.subject | Cohort Studies | en |
| dc.subject | Female | en |
| dc.subject | Humans | en |
| dc.subject | Mass Screening/*methods | en |
| dc.subject | Middle Aged | en |
| dc.subject | Ovarian Neoplasms/*diagnosis | en |
| dc.subject | Prospective Studies | en |
| dc.title | Ovarian cancer screening | en |
| heal.type | journalArticle | - |
| heal.type.en | Journal article | en |
| heal.type.el | Άρθρο Περιοδικού | el |
| heal.identifier.secondary | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17214343 | - |
| heal.language | en | - |
| heal.access | campus | - |
| heal.recordProvider | Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Σχολή Επιστημών Υγείας. Τμήμα Ιατρικής | el |
| heal.publicationDate | 2006 | - |
| heal.abstract | PURPOSE: This review presents the current knowledge on ovarian cancer screening (OCS) together with a cumulative evaluation of the efficacy across diverse screening approaches based on up-to-date results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted targeting reports on the effectiveness of the various screening strategies. RESULTS: Twenty-two prospective studies, 18 cohorts and 4 randomised control trials (RCTs) were retrieved. Where possible, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values, as well as the number needed to treat for each cancer (NNT) and each stage I disease [NNT (I)] detected are reported. CONCLUSION: The multimodal approach that incorporates CA125 as a primary and ultrasound as a secondary test appears to be superior to other strategies. However, the conclusive end-point that would provide the acceptable level of evidence for the introduction of screening should be a reduction in mortality. Up-to-date, there is no such evidence to justify this. | en |
| heal.journalName | Anticancer Research | en |
| heal.journalType | peer-reviewed | - |
| heal.fullTextAvailability | TRUE | - |
| Appears in Collections: | Άρθρα σε επιστημονικά περιοδικά ( Ανοικτά) - ΙΑΤ | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
