This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

GARRY S. BRODY, MD; DENNIS M. DEAPEN, DRPH
Downey, Calif

Arch Surg. 1989;124(2):256-257.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—Silverstein et al¹ report that in their clinic, breast cancers diagnosed in women with augmentation mammoplasties were more advanced than in nonaugmented patients. They imply that the delay in diagnosis is due to the implant obscuring and compressing the breast, thus reducing the effectiveness of mammography. In light of published evidence that they did not discuss, and in light of potentially serious design flaws in their study, their data do not support their conclusions and should be considered with great skepticism.

Specialty clinics in large urban areas are exceptionally vulnerable to referral bias that can produce overestimations or underestimations of associations. No referral information is provided, and the fact that none of the augmented patients presented until their masses had been palpable for up to two years (mean, 123 days) suggests that the behavior of these patients may be much different from that of the nonaugmented . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?