In this issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, Clark et al1 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.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Woloshin S, Black WC, Kramer BS. Lung Cancer Screening Websites—Balanced Information vs Advertisement. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(6):821–823. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0103
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: