Skip to main content
Log in

Welche Voraussetzungen sind für ein Screening notwendig?

Screening: Prerequisites

  • Schwerpunkt
  • Published:
Der Internist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Screeninguntersuchungen können ein sehr wertvolles Mittel zur Vorbeugung oder wirksameren Bekämpfung von Erkrankungen sein. Dazu müssen eine Reihe von Voraussetzungen erfüllt sein: Die Erkrankung oder eine Krankheitsvorstufe muss bereits in einer präklinischen Phase diagnostizierbar sein, wofür ein geeigneter Test verfügbar sein muss. Die frühere Entdeckung muss dazu führen, dass die Krankheit wirksamer bekämpft werden kann und nicht nur die „Patientenkarriere“ verlängert. Der Nutzen des Screenings muss potenzielle Nachteile überschreiten, zu denen z. B. Komplikationen, falsch positive Diagnosen oder Überdiagnosen (d. h. die Diagnose klinisch irrelevanter Erkrankungsformen) gehören. Der Nutzen muss zu vertretbaren Kosten erreichbar sein. Die Durchführung muss auf der Basis wissenschaftlicher Evidenz erfolgen und wissenschaftlich begleitet werden.

Abstract

Screening can be a very powerful tool for prevention or more effective treatment of diseases. However, a number of prerequisites have to be met. Only diseases with a preclinical phase, during which the disease or its precursors can be detected by a suited test, are amenable to screening. Early detection of the disease must enable either prevention or more effective management of the disease and not just prolong the “patient career”. The benefits of screening must encompass potential harms, which may include, for example, complications, false positive diagnoses or over-diagnoses (i.e. the diagnosis of clinically irrelevant disease). Benefits from screening must be achieved at acceptable costs. Implementation of screening has to be based on scientific evidence and accompanied by scientific evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D et al. CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) (2001) The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134: 663–694

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. dos Santos Silva I (1999) Cancer epidemiology: principles and methods. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon

  3. Drummond MF, O’Brian BO, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

  4. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R et al. (1993) The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 13: 89–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New York

  6. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH et al. (1996) Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 348: 1472–1477

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E et al. (2000) Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 20: 332–342

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lang CA, Ransohoff DF (1994) Fecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Is mortality reduced by chance selection for screening colonoscopy? JAMA 271: 1011–1013

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, McGinnis JM et al. (2001) Methods for priority setting among clinical preventive services. Am J Prev Med 21: 10–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mandel JS, Church TR, Bond JH et al. (2000) The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 343: 1603–1607

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mandel JS, Church TR, Ederer F, Bond JH (1999) Colorectal cancer mortality: effectiveness of biennial screening for fecal occult blood. J Natl Cancer Inst 91: 434–437

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Marcus PM, Bergstralh EJ, Zweig MH et al. (2006) Extended lung cancer incidence follow-up in the Mayo Lung Project and overdiagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 748–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Paci E, Miccinesi G, Puliti D et al. (2006) Estimate of overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to mammography after adjustment for lead time. A service screening study in Italy. Breast Cancer Res 8: R68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schwartz FW (2003) Das Public Health Buch. Gesundheit und Gesundheitswesen. Urban & Fischer, München Jena

  15. Sieg A, Brenner H (2007) Cost-saving analysis of screening colonoscopy in Germany. Z Gastroenterol 45: 945–951

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Teutsch SM, Murray JF (1999) Dissecting cost-effectiveness analysis for preventive interventions: a guide for decision makers. Am J Manag Care 5: 301–305

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Hoffmeister.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoffmeister, M., Haug, U. & Brenner, H. Welche Voraussetzungen sind für ein Screening notwendig?. Internist 49, 655–659 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00108-008-2127-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00108-008-2127-7

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation