% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Brenner:277915,
      author       = {H. Brenner$^*$ and T. Heisser$^*$ and R. Cardoso$^*$ and M.
                      Hoffmeister$^*$},
      title        = {{W}hen gold standards are not so golden: prevalence bias in
                      randomized trials on endoscopic colorectal cancer
                      screening.},
      journal      = {European journal of epidemiology},
      volume       = {38},
      number       = {9},
      issn         = {0393-2990},
      address      = {Dordrecht [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Springer Science + Business Media B.V.},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2023-01574},
      pages        = {933-937},
      year         = {2023},
      note         = {#EA:C070#EA:C120#LA:C070# / 2023 Sep;38(9):933-937},
      abstract     = {Randomized trials on the effectiveness of screening
                      endoscopy in reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) risk have
                      reported statistically significant, but rather modest
                      reduction of CRC risk by the screening offer. However, risk
                      estimates in these trials included substantial proportions
                      of prevalent CRC cases which were early detected, but could
                      not possibly have been prevented by screening. Thereby, a
                      key principle of randomized prevention trials is violated
                      that only 'at risk' persons who do not yet have the disease
                      one aims to prevent should be included in measures of
                      preventive effects. Using recently published data from the
                      Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC)
                      trial as an example, we illustrate that approaches aimed to
                      account for 'prevalence bias' lead to effect estimates that
                      are substantially larger than those reported in the trial
                      and more in line with results from observational studies and
                      real life settings. More rigorous methodological work is
                      needed to develop effective and user-friendly tools to
                      prevent or adjust for prevalence bias in future screening
                      studies.},
      keywords     = {Bias (Other) / Colorectal cancer (Other) / Endoscopy
                      (Other) / Incidence (Other) / Prevalence (Other) / Trial
                      (Other)},
      cin          = {C070 / C120 / HD01},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C070-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)C120-20160331 /
                      I:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:37530938},
      doi          = {10.1007/s10654-023-01031-2},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/277915},
}