Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Highlights of this issue

Highlights of this issue

CMAJ February 20, 2001 164 (4) 457;
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
Loading

Asbestos: the arguments

“Should asbestos be banned worldwide?” is the question at the centre of this issue's controversy. Asbestos is known to cause lung fibrosis and cancer, but can the risks be controlled by technology or regulation of workplace practices? Do the health effects depend on the form of asbestos? Are substitutes satisfactory and safe, or do they carry their own risks? Will a country-by-country ban lead to the transfer of harm from developed to developing countries? Or is an international ban on asbestos a paternalistic action by the developed world that, like the ban on DDT, may have unforeseen consequences? These issues and arguments are debated by Joseph LaDou and colleagues from the Collegium Ramazzini, Michel Camus and Jack Siemiatycki.

See pages 489, 491 and 495

Risk assessment

Much of the asbestos debate hinges on disagreement about risks. In the final article of our Environment and Health series, John Bailar and John Bailer consider the science that underlies risk assessment. It is no single science but, rather, a multidisciplinary endeavour involving, among others, biologists, chemists, pathologists, toxicologists, epidemiologists, statisticians, hydrologists and meterologists. The data are complex and often incomplete; the outcomes are bounded by uncertainty and often controversial; risks are usually offset by benefits; and we do not know how best to weigh the one against the other. Nevertheless, decisions must still be made. The authors outline current strategies for deciding what is, and is not, acceptable risk.

See page 503

Hypertension guidelines in practice

The uptake of clinical practice guidelines has generally been limited, and physician, patient and practice barriers have been identified. In this issue, Finlay McAlister and colleagues review guidelines for the management of hypertension and consider their possible shortcomings. Possible barriers to uptake in this case include discordant recommendations, methodological deficiencies, overemphasis of blood pressure measurement without regard for other clinical risk factors, overly long and inaccessible formats, and a lack of local endorsement or applicability. In addition, current distribution strategies emphasize dissemination rather than implementation. The authors discuss methods for improving the latter.

See page 517

Neonatal group B streptococcal disease

Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is the most frequent cause of serious neonatal infection in North America. The effectiveness of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis is agreed upon; the best means of identifying patients in need less so. Several consensus statements were released between 1994 and 1997. Dele Davies and coworkers surveyed physicians' screening practices in 1994, 1995 and 1997. The proportion of physicians who screened at least 75% of pregnant women increased from 77% (754/981) in 1994 to 85% (693/812) in 1997, and the proportion who conformed completely with any of 3 consensus guidelines increased from 10% to 29%. Concurrently, the incidence of neonatal GBS disease decreased significantly.

See page 479

Mammograms for women under 50?

Screening mammography has been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality among women aged 50–69 years. However, its appropriateness for younger women at average risk of breast cancer remains controversial. Jolie Ringash, with the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, has reviewed the evidence regarding the effectiveness of screening mammography that has accumulated since the task force's 1994 recommendation against the manoeuvre for women aged 40–49. The task force concludes that the current evidence does not support the manoeuvre's inclusion in, or its exclusion from, the periodic health examination of women under 50 years of age. It recommends that, upon reaching 40, women be told about the potential benefits and risks and assisted in deciding when they wish to initiate screening. In a related commentary Mary Barton underlines the relative paucity of information on harm and the uncertainties as to how best to counsel women about breast cancer screening.

See pages 469 and 498

Figure1

Figure. Photo by: Asbestos Institute

Figure2

Figure. Photo by: Art Explosion

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 164, Issue 4
20 Feb 2001
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Highlights of this issue
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Highlights of this issue
CMAJ Feb 2001, 164 (4) 457;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Highlights of this issue
CMAJ Feb 2001, 164 (4) 457;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Asbestos: the arguments
    • Risk assessment
    • Hypertension guidelines in practice
    • Neonatal group B streptococcal disease
    • Mammograms for women under 50?
  • Responses
  • Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Highlights
  • Highlights
  • Highlights of this issue
Show more Highlights of this issue

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire