Skip to main content
Log in

How serious are the adverse effects of screening?

  • Screening
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The adverse effects of screening are not commonly studied. False-positive tests lead to discomfort, costs, and risks from additional diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. False-negative tests lead to a sense of security and delays in seeking medical help when symptoms develop. Labeling an individual with a false-positive test, or with a true-positive test for which there is no evidence that intervention makes a difference, e.g., intervention on an 80-year-old asymptomatic woman with hypercholesterolemia, can have a markedly negative impact on the quality of life. Interpreting statistical abnormalities out of clinical context, e.g., lending importance to a multiphasic blood screen showing “high” alkaline phosphatase in a teenager, leads to unnecessary costs and anxiety. The cost of screening programs that may not have been shown to do more good than harm is already having an impact on the resources available to diagnose and treatment symptomatic persons. Premature implementation of unproved screening programs will continue to decrease physician and public confidence in prevention.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Frank JW. Occult-blood screening for colorectal carcinoma: the risks. Am J Prev Med. 1985;1(4):25–32.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wright CJ. Breast cancer screening: a different look at the evidence. Surgery. 1986;100:594–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Tacker SB. Quality of controlled trials. The case of imaging ultrasound in obstetrics: a review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985;92:437–444.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lockwood C, Benacerraf B, Krinsky A, et al. A sonographic screening method for Down syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;157:803–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sorenson JR, Levy HL, Mangione TW, Sepe SJ. Parental response to repeat testing of infants with “false-positive” results in a newborn screening program. Pediatrics. 1986;73L2m:183–7.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fyro K, Bodegard G. Four year follow-up of psychological reactions to false positive screening tests for congenital hypothyroidism. Acta Paediatr Scand. 1987;76:107–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Frank JW. Occult-blood screening for colorectal carcinoma: the yield and the costs. Am J Prev Med. 1985;1(5).

  8. Sienko DG, Osuch JR, Camburn JF. The need for quality assurance in mammography. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:14, 941 [letter].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fox RC. Essays in medical sociology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bergman AB, Stamm SJ. The morbidity of cardiac nondisease in schoolchildren. N Engl J Med. 1967;276:18,1008–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. MacDonald LA, Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Taylor DW. Labelling in hypertension: a review of the behavioural and psychological consequences. J Chronic Dis. 1984;37:12,933–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cadman D, Chambers LW, Walter SD, et al. Evaluation of public health preschool child developmental screening: the process and outcomes of a community program. Am J Public Health. 1987;77:1,45–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hampton ML, Anderson J, Lavizzo BS, Bergman AB. Sickle cell nondisease. Am J Dis Child. 1974;128:58–61.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Quill TE, Lipkin Jr. M, Greenland P. The medicalization of normal variants: the case of mitral valve prolapse. J Gen Intern Med. 1987;3:267–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Detection and management of asymptomatic hypercholesterolemia: document of the Toronto Working Group on Cholesterol Policy, Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Medical Association, 1989.

  16. Becker MH. The tyranny of health promotion. Public Health Rev. 1986;14:15–25.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bergman AB. The menace of mass screening. Am J Public Health. 1977;67:(7)601–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Received from the Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Feldman, W. How serious are the adverse effects of screening?. J Gen Intern Med 5 (Suppl 2), S50–S53 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02600842

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02600842

Key words

Navigation