Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death

Post by DanBC » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 10:06 AM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #47

kgwgk wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It cannot be used to say that the help either, but you wrote “Seems the study does provide data that allows this so, and shows clear differences in cancer rates and survival rates for those that did get colonoscopies.”

I read it that the invite doesn get you differnces, the colonoscopy itsrlf does. And if that isn't statistically a gold standard, randomization and all tgat, I don't care. What the study says, IMHO, is that invoting people doesn't do any good when people don't show up. Which is an interesting problem, isn't it? Not inviting people might be an option, one that doesn't provide any benefits, except an number of letters…

Post by hef19898 » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 10:20 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #61

hef19898 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it that the invite doesn get you differnces, the colonoscopy itsrlf does. And if that isn't statistically a gold standard, randomization and all tgat, I don't care. What the study says, IMHO, is that invoting people doesn't do any good when people don't show up. Which is an interesting problem, isn't it? Not inviting people might be an option, one that doesn't provide any benefits, except an number of letters…

> because every single additional person showing up for a screening is a net win We can't say that from this study. Colonoscopy does appear to be one of the screenings that reduces mortality. (That's why this is such a surprising result and is getting a lot of attention). But that does not mean that colonoscopy screening is useful for people in their 40s. There's a lot of discussion about the benefits and risks of co…

Post by dis-sys » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 10:37 AM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #43

hef19898 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Invited or not, if you don't show up to a colonoscopy you don't get one. Which means the study's data on invitations alone cannot be used to evaluate the effect of colonoscopies. Seems the study does provide data that allows this so, and shows clear differences in cancer rates and survival rates for those that did get colonoscopies. Argueing about the randomization of these numbers, and the meta-statistical aspects o…

You have to look at it from the perspective of medical practice. The hypothesis is that inviting people for a regular check up reduces mortality. If a lot of people don’t take up the offer because the procedure is too invasive, carries some risk, etc. then that is a very relevant variable to take into account. Vs, for example, fecal testing as mentioned in the article. It could have a lower precision, but if uptake i…

Post by dis-sys » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 10:41 AM UTC

Post by darkerside » Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 10:50 AM UTC

em500 wrote: post #49

ricardobeat wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing wrong with the title. The study failed to find a reduction in death rate despite lowering the incidence of cancer, and that is the center of the piece. It goes into detail of why this is surprising. The study authors were interviewed and agreed. The reporting actually adds a lot of context that you would never get from a link to a random study. Like, for example, how it is called the “gold standard”…

The problem with the title is that it might lead individuals to believe they shouldn't bother with getting a colonoscopy. You can't conclude that from this study at all. If your doctor recommends you to get one, you probably should. The study answers a question pertaining public health policy (should we invite everyone in some age group for a colonoscopy?). It does not answer any individual health/treatment/screening…