Earlier this month, I presented the updated colon cancer screening guidelines and commented how virtual colonoscopy may improve screening rates due to its less invasive nature than the traditional colonoscopy. My premise was that patient discomfort served as a primary deterrent to higher rates of colonoscopy use. Data from a recently published Vanderbilt study, however, beg to differ and suggest that other factors account for the inadequate rates of colon cancer screening in the United States.
The study population was derived from the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS), a large research endeavor to characterize cancer trends and disparities across racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. The group comprises 51,454 patients (ages 40-79 years) collected from 48 community health centers. The exclusion criteria for this particular study included the following: race other than African-American or Caucasian; uncertainty of whether the patient has had a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy; and, uncertainty of family cancer history. This left 41,830 participants, who were surveyed on personal demographics, personal history of colorectal polyps, family history of colon cancer, patterns of undergoing screening endoscopy, and last visit to a health care provider.
Read more … »
Roche Laboratories has produced an interesting marketing adjunct to its famous Tamiflu® (oseltamivir) drug: The Tamiflu Desktop Flu Tracker. The software tracks the latest trends of reported influenza cases throughout the United States and generates a geographical representation of disease demographics. The Desktop Flu Tracker also lets you set alerts for flu outbreaks in different neighborhoods. Additional preventative health information is included. Learn the classic symptoms of flu and how it differs from the common cold.
The program currently runs on Windows (98SE and above). It is not available for the MacOS.
Technorati Tags:
tamiflu
flu
flu tracker
oseltamivir
antibiotics
vaccine
virus
medicine
health
medical
education
Posted January 21st, 2006 in
Epidemiology,
Pediatrics,
ResearchSudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is the leading cause of infant death within the first year of life. Death occurs suddenly and without identifiable cause. Clinical investigation and autopsy may not reveal evidence of SIDS. SIDS is therefore a diagnosis of exclusion (after excluding other possibilities, such as trauma, child abuse, or poisoning). Other diagnostic methods may include radiology, microbiology, and histology. Although the cause of SIDS is still unknown, several risk factors have been identified. The recommendation to have infants sleep in a supine position has reduced the incidence of SIDS. Congenital and genetic risk factors have also been implicated in the syndrome.
Researchers in Cambridge, United Kingdom, recently published in the journal Pediatrics a model to estimate the risk of SIDS based on a retrospective study of 505011 singleton births. The model takes into account several demographic variables, including maternal age, marital status, parity, smoking status, birth weight, and sex of the child.
To estimate the risk of SIDS, the likelihood ratio for each variable is first determined through tables (available in the journal article). The likelihood ratios are then multiplied together: total LR = LR1 x LR2 x … x LRn. The total LR is used to calculate the post-test odds (post-test odds = pre-test odds x total LR). The risk of SIDS is 1/(post-test odds).
- Smith GC, White IR. Predicting the risk for sudden infant death syndrome from obstetric characteristics: a retrospective cohort study of 505011 live births. Pediatrics 2006;117;60-6.
Technorati Tags:
sids
sudden infant death syndrome
infant
baby
child
medical
education
journal
news
Posted January 16th, 2006 in
Epidemiology,
Oncology
The National Cancer Institute recently published the 2005 update of the Cancer Trends Progress Report. The document tracks several key measures related to cancer, including health habits, early screening, diagnosis, treatment, and mortality. The good news is that death rates for the most common cancers (prostate, breast, lung, and colorectal) have continued to decline. These positive trends may stem from continual health promotion, more aggressive cancer screening, and advancing treatment regimens. The bad news is that cancer is now the leading cause of death for people under 85, and the incidence of the most common cancers (prostate, female breast, and lung) continues to increase.
Confused? Be careful to differentiate the mortality rate (deaths per 100,000 people per year) from the incidence (new cases per 100,000 people per year). Early screening has permitted doctors to catch cancers at earlier, less severe, and more treatable stages. In other words, even though the number of cancer cases continues to increase, early intervention is influencing the odds of survival.
