{"title":"Self-Selection Bias in Randomized and Observational Studies on Screening Mammography: A Quantitative Assessment.","authors":"Philippe Autier","doi":"10.2147/CLEP.S515464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Observational studies aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of screening mammography are prone to self-selection due to differences in personal characteristics between women attending and those not attending screening. A method based on a quantity <i>Dr</i> has been promoted to correct for this bias, <i>Dr</i> being the risk of breast cancer death in a group of women not attending screening compared to the risk of breast cancer death in a population without screening.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To estimate the amount of self-selection in observational studies aimed at evaluating screening mammography effectiveness and to estimate <i>Dr</i> quantities needed to correct for this bias.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A first step quantified self-selection and <i>Dr</i> quantities specific to Swedish randomized trials using the most recent publications. A second step estimated self-selection specific to cohort studies on screening mammography effectiveness using the relative risk of 0.54 for all-cause death from these studies and the relative risk of all-cause death of 0.98 reported in Swedish trials. Using self-selection estimated from cohort studies, the <i>Dr</i> quantity needed to correct observational studies on screening mammography effectiveness was estimated. In a last step, corrections for self-selection in observational studies on screening mammography were retrieved.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The self-selection bias was 2.10 in Swedish trials. Self-selection in cohort studies was computed as (0.98/0.54) = 1.78. The <i>Dr</i> quantity required to correct results of observational studies was 1.53. In 19 case-control and cohort studies on screening mammography effectiveness, the median <i>Dr</i> quantity used for correction purposes was 1.16 (IQR: 1.11-1.28).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to women attending screening, the risk of breast cancer death was approximately two times greater in women not attending screening. This increased risk was independent of screening effects. Most observational studies have overestimated the effectiveness of screening mammography because they used <i>Dr</i> quantities that were too small to correct for self-selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":10362,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"17 ","pages":"441-450"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12053770/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S515464","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Observational studies aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of screening mammography are prone to self-selection due to differences in personal characteristics between women attending and those not attending screening. A method based on a quantity Dr has been promoted to correct for this bias, Dr being the risk of breast cancer death in a group of women not attending screening compared to the risk of breast cancer death in a population without screening.
Objective: To estimate the amount of self-selection in observational studies aimed at evaluating screening mammography effectiveness and to estimate Dr quantities needed to correct for this bias.
Methods: A first step quantified self-selection and Dr quantities specific to Swedish randomized trials using the most recent publications. A second step estimated self-selection specific to cohort studies on screening mammography effectiveness using the relative risk of 0.54 for all-cause death from these studies and the relative risk of all-cause death of 0.98 reported in Swedish trials. Using self-selection estimated from cohort studies, the Dr quantity needed to correct observational studies on screening mammography effectiveness was estimated. In a last step, corrections for self-selection in observational studies on screening mammography were retrieved.
Results: The self-selection bias was 2.10 in Swedish trials. Self-selection in cohort studies was computed as (0.98/0.54) = 1.78. The Dr quantity required to correct results of observational studies was 1.53. In 19 case-control and cohort studies on screening mammography effectiveness, the median Dr quantity used for correction purposes was 1.16 (IQR: 1.11-1.28).
Conclusion: Compared to women attending screening, the risk of breast cancer death was approximately two times greater in women not attending screening. This increased risk was independent of screening effects. Most observational studies have overestimated the effectiveness of screening mammography because they used Dr quantities that were too small to correct for self-selection.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Epidemiology is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal. Clinical Epidemiology focuses on the application of epidemiological principles and questions relating to patients and clinical care in terms of prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.
Clinical Epidemiology welcomes papers covering these topics in form of original research and systematic reviews.
Clinical Epidemiology has a special interest in international electronic medical patient records and other routine health care data, especially as applied to safety of medical interventions, clinical utility of diagnostic procedures, understanding short- and long-term clinical course of diseases, clinical epidemiological and biostatistical methods, and systematic reviews.
When considering submission of a paper utilizing publicly-available data, authors should ensure that such studies add significantly to the body of knowledge and that they use appropriate validated methods for identifying health outcomes.
The journal has launched special series describing existing data sources for clinical epidemiology, international health care systems and validation studies of algorithms based on databases and registries.