4 ms·

The article pins part of its argument on the claim that advances in diagnostics have not changed the death rate for (e.g.) breast cancer during the past quarter

The article pins part of its argument on the claim that advances in diagnostics have not changed the death rate for (e.g.) breast cancer during the past quarter century, but a superficial search immediately suggests this to be grossly false. "Death rates from female breast cancer dropped 39% from 1989 to 2015." - all other things being equal, it ought to have increased: age is a risk factor for cancers, and we have an older population. Instead, it has greatly decreased. So I dispute the veracity of several of the article's claims, but also: what is considered unnecessary changes with the benefit of hindsight. I would argue that it's expected that a majority of diagnostic tests deliver a negative result (i.e. turn out to be "unnecessary"), and this is actually a mark of a healthy healthcare system.

Consultant32452 9y ago
There are other likely explanations for that data. If more women are getting screened more frequently then their cancers will be detected earlier and improve survival rate. That doesn't mean the diagnostics tools themselves have improved the survival rate, only that the diagnostic tools are now used more frequently.
- throwaway1982x 9y ago
  >If more women are getting screened more frequently then their cancers will be detected earlier and improve survival rate. Yes, but the article argues directly against this point.
- learnstats2 9y ago
  There may be other explanations, but the article denies the truth of the data to claim this point.
maxerickson 9y ago
How do the survival rates speak to the impact of advances in diagnostics? For improvements in diagnostics to be particularly important to survival rates, you'd need to show things like cancer being found much more often now or that finding it sooner (than was typical in 1985) greatly improves survival rates. Really what has happened is that treatments have gotten a lot better.

Consultant32452 9y ago

There are other likely explanations for that data. If more women are getting screened more frequently then their cancers will be detected earlier and improve survival rate. That doesn't mean the diagnostics tools themselves have improved the survival rate, only that the diagnostic tools are now used more frequently.

throwaway1982x 9y ago
>If more women are getting screened more frequently then their cancers will be detected earlier and improve survival rate. Yes, but the article argues directly against this point.
learnstats2 9y ago
There may be other explanations, but the article denies the truth of the data to claim this point.

maxerickson 9y ago

How do the survival rates speak to the impact of advances in diagnostics? For improvements in diagnostics to be particularly important to survival rates, you'd need to show things like cancer being found much more often now or that finding it sooner (than was typical in 1985) greatly improves survival rates. Really what has happened is that treatments have gotten a lot better.