BMJ  2004;328:769 (27 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7442.769-a

Letter

Websites on screening for breast cancer

Language may be as misleading as statistics

The first 100% of the full text of this article appears below.

EDITOR—Ironically, the paper by Jørgensen and Gøtzsche purporting to reveal "bias" in government and advocacy websites providing information on mammographic screening is itself a prime example of both bias and misleading information.1 Language may be as misleading as statistics—why else do the authors repeatedly use the term harms when discussing the risks associated with mammography? Is it coincidence that these authors, with their own personal axe to grind, are the only researchers of note to resort to such language?

Neither do they mention the fact that the Cochrane Collaboration has consistently rejected their previous findings. So much for balanced information and informed consent.

Most disappointing of all is the fact that the BMJ has allowed itself to become party to another attack on mammography by parading the paper as research on the quality of websites.

Rosetta Manaszewicz, steering committee member

Breast Cancer Action Group (Victoria), PO Box 381, Fairfield, VIC 3078, Australia rmanasz@optushome.com.au

Competing interests: None declared.

  1. Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study. BMJ 2004;328: 148. (17 January.)[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study
Karsten Juhl Jørgensen and Peter C Gøtzsche
BMJ 2004 328: 148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ