In: Nursing
Caverly, T.J., Fagerlin, A, & Wiener, R.S. (2018, January 22). Comparison of observed harms and expected mortality benefit for persons in the Veterans Health Affairs Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project. JAMA Internal Medicine.
1. What research questions are addressed in this study and what is their purpose? 2. What type of research design was used (experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational) in this study and what led you to your decision? 3. Are the instruments in this study valid and reliable, why or why not? 4. Discuss the specific results of each of the ANCOVAs (analysis of covariance) done in this study. What was the purpose of"each" of the ANCOVAs? What was the covariate in each and why did they do an ANCOVA in each case (5 points)? 5. In the Tables, results are presented, Please explain the tables and summarize the results. 6. Explain, in simple language, any significant results of this study? 7. Identify and discuss any threats to internal and/or external validity in this study. 8. If you could redesign this study correcting anything you have found wrong with the research, what would you correct and how would you do it?
1, The veterans Health Affairs(VHA) lung cancer screening(LCS)
comparison of observed harms and expected mortality for persons
with lung cancer..Lung cancer screening demonstration project
findout much higher false-positive rate with initial low-dose
computed tomographic screening..Real-world findings from a veterans
reinforce the need for personalized decision-making validated
risk-stratification models in lung cancer screening..purpose of
this study to prevent lung cancer death..
2, Bach risk tool was used..Two large randomize trials..published
decision analyses and the SEER(surveilance,Epidemiology and End
Results)cancer registry..Design state-transition microstimulation
model..
3, Instruments in this study model valid (LDCT)low-dose computed
tomography screening influenced with eligible persons with annual
lung cancer risk..LDCT screening over came even highly negative
views about screening and its downsides..people in low-risk groups
need to know the risk for harm and a low chance for
benefits..
5,patient's in higher quintiles of lung cancer risk had
significantly more lung cancer diagnosed(4.8lung cancer per 1,000
in quintile 1 versus 29.7 per 1000 in quintile 5)..The rates of
false-positive results and downstream evaluations did not differ
significantly across risk quintiles..over all 56.2% rate
false-positive results 2.0% rate false-positive results need
downstream diagnostic evaluations..totally there is high
false-postive rates so patients at high lung cancer risk still
surpasses those of most established cancer screening programs..