Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are colonoscopies worth it?

asteriskmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–296 of 296 posts

Re: Are colonoscopies worth it?

#291

Post by theogravity »

denton-scratch wrote: post #196
theogravity wrote: post #140

I just got one two days ago because my family has a history of it. Other than having to go on a no fiber diet and ingesting specific sets of salts to empty the bowel for the procedure, it was pretty in and out, and no pain at all afterwords (probably because they didn't find any polyps). I went home with neat pictures of my clean colon. Also lost 10 lbs in the past week but already seemed to have gained back a little…

> (probably because they didn't find any polyps) They found polyps in mine, and removed them; no pain after. The colon doesn't have pain nerves.

That's good to hear they found and removed them before it can become a bigger problem. Does that mean you have to do a visit every 2-3 years now?

Re: Are colonoscopies worth it?

#292

Post by haldujai »

riku_iki wrote: post #45
haldujai wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but procedural complications are actually quite rare, as alluded to in this article. Misses from operator error, suboptimal bowel prep, or inability to complete the examination are more common and where we have the most potential for benefit from novel screening tests.

> Sure but procedural complications are actually quite rare, as alluded to in this article. article actually says that perforation (requires emergency surgery as per article) is between 1 to 100 and 1 to 20000 base on some studies, which sounds very high if it is not mistake.

1 in 100 is old data, 1 to 20000 is not high. The study they cited had 0 in 12000.

The real number is closer to 20000, both from more recent literature and personal experience.

Re: Are colonoscopies worth it?

#293

Post by haldujai »

csours wrote: post #212
haldujai wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with medical interventions, especially tests, is that they sometimes work. There will always be success stories. Do you prefer medical interventions that never work? > are there other paths to those same success stories. Yes, in the US other options include high sensitivity FOBT, FIT, sDNA-FIT and CT colonography.

> Do you prefer medical interventions that never work? Are there medical interventions that never work - aside from bad faith hypotheticals? Even placebo works pretty often. The article under discussion is all about teasing apart confusing and conflicting data in medical studies. The comment I replied to asks why they have been directed to do something useless. >> are there other paths to those same success stories.…

I don’t understand what you mean by statistically?

All of those are endorsed by the USPSTF I.e. reimbursed by insurance and available in the US.

Re: Are colonoscopies worth it?

#294

Post by haldujai »

Vecr wrote: post #73
haldujai wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with medical interventions, especially tests, is that they sometimes work. There will always be success stories. Do you prefer medical interventions that never work? > are there other paths to those same success stories. Yes, in the US other options include high sensitivity FOBT, FIT, sDNA-FIT and CT colonography.

CT as in X-ray computed tomography? If so, it's dubious if that's safer than a colonoscopy, depending on what ionizing radiation harm model you use.

We are required to use LNT in the United States and Canada.

The attributable cancer risk for CT colonography is a rounding error, and considerably lower than the quoted perforation risk.

That said as a radiologist I personally still opt for colonoscopy screening, it is however an option for patients.

Post reply on HN