8 ms·

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 stud

by em500 4y ago

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 question. The article's headline and content is problematic because it's easy to confuse the two, and the vast majority of readers will never get involved in public health policy (but will certainly have to make lots of individual health decisions).

ldoughty 4y ago
> The problem with the title is that it might lead individuals to believe they shouldn't bother with getting a colonoscopy. That is exactly what I thought it was saying at a glance. If I skimmed the headline and moved on, instead of digging in, it might have contributed to an unconscious bias against the procedure.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  Uh... I think it is what it's saying though? I mean, you should probably still get a colonoscopy if recommended by your doctor which it probably will be right now... but the effects of this study may be to change those recommendations down the line, that is what it suggests. (I think it's not the first, but I'm not sure).
  - ldoughty 4y ago
    The summary I read on CNN: > In this study, about 12,000 people in Sweden, Poland and Norway got colonoscopies. They saw a 31% reduction in their risk of colon cancer and a 50% reduction in their risk of dying from colon cancer compared with people who were not invited to get a colonoscopy. https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/10/health/colonoscopy-study-q-and-a-wellness/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/10/health/colonoscopy-study-q-an...
darkerside 4y ago
You're walking a dangerous path, friend
JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
I’m so confused though, because based on my reading of it, it seems like the prostate screening thing where yes it might find cancer but no it won’t prevent deaths, so it might be better to just not know/do invasive procedures and treatment for it. Is that the wrong conclusion to reach from the data?
- bitcurious 4y ago
  You could think of screening as a bet on anti-cancer drugs getting better over the next N years.
  - lupire 4y ago
    Or you could wait for better drugs before getting an invasive screening.
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    Prostate cancer is different from colon cancer. In the case of colon cancer detected in a colonoscopy they can snip it out right there without a lot of effort, risk or lost function. Surgery on the prostate is likely to cause all sorts of problems for men.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      And not having surgery for it can mean death. Steve Jobs, even it wasn't prostate cancer, should serve as good example of how not to tackle it. Or at least to show what not tackeling it looks like, because feel free to do what you want, but be aware of the consequences.
      - SoftTalker 4y ago
        Jobs had pancreatic cancer. His holistic approach to dealing with it notwithstanding, that diagnosis is usually a death sentence no matter what you do.
        4y ago
prirun 4y ago
> 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 problem with your doctor's recommendation is that doctors recommend colonoscopy based on age, not whether you have any factors that might indicate colon cancer. I have no cancer of any kind anywhere in my family tree and they are always on me to get one. From the article, a doctor who still believes in colonoscopy for everyone: “The first message is that screening saves lives [Ed: against this study's data] and prevents cancer. If we could have a chance to start everyone at age 45, I’d like that."
- greedo 4y ago
  No one in my family history going back several generations had colo/rectal cancer. Yet I developed it at age 41. Diet is increasingly viewed as a factor.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    I had it at 26, go figure. My petvtheory is that in orser to get the average age back to 50, you need someone like me for every 80 year old, statistics are a bitch. That also means my children will have screening coloscopies starting age 16.
  - Findecanor 4y ago
    Have you got your genes tested? People can have Lynch syndrome and not develop cancer. Colon cancer is also a silent danger in that it can grow for years without any noticeable symptoms. I got colon cancer at age 35 (despite being a vegetarian, BTW), and it was first then that suspicion was raised that there could be a hereditary component - which was later confirmed by a gene test.
- Clent 4y ago
  The study does not say that coloscopies don't help. The study measures a difference in the study's population. The study does indicate they don't affect outcomes as much as expected. However, their affect is positive. The study's measured affect has wide errors bars indicating a larger sample size is needed. Subsequent studies could show the affect is more inline with expectations but are unlikely to show less affect. The question as to whether this will be used to reinforce hesitancy for this procedure; we can already see it in the comment. Logic and reason are not naturally occurring traits. I predict this will be used to move more people into the control group. Going against medical advice is anecdotally meaningful.
hammock 4y ago
>The problem with the title is that it might lead individuals to believe they shouldn't bother with getting a colonoscopy. Dangerous misinformation!! Censor!! I have reported the author, Angus Chen, to his employer. Or you could just comment...
imgabe 4y ago
Do people really ignore their doctor's advice because they saw a headline? I'm sure there are some examples, but that can't be the norm. Obviously a colonscopy can still be indicated for an individual even if it doesn't help by doing it en masse for everyone. Specific symptoms could indicate a colonoscopy would provide more information and there are a number of other conditions where it would be used besides colon cancer. I can't realistically see anyone saying "No thanks, doc, I'm not going to get that colonoscopy you recommended, because I saw a headline" This trend of saying a thing is bad because you can imagine some unbelievably stupid person misinterpreting it and misusing it is getting out of hand. At some point people are responsible for their own decisions.

by em500 4y ago

ldoughty 4y ago

> The problem with the title is that it might lead individuals to believe they shouldn't bother with getting a colonoscopy. That is exactly what I thought it was saying at a glance. If I skimmed the headline and moved on, instead of digging in, it might have contributed to an unconscious bias against the procedure.

jrochkind1 4y ago
Uh... I think it is what it's saying though? I mean, you should probably still get a colonoscopy if recommended by your doctor which it probably will be right now... but the effects of this study may be to change those recommendations down the line, that is what it suggests. (I think it's not the first, but I'm not sure).
- ldoughty 4y ago
  The summary I read on CNN: > In this study, about 12,000 people in Sweden, Poland and Norway got colonoscopies. They saw a 31% reduction in their risk of colon cancer and a 50% reduction in their risk of dying from colon cancer compared with people who were not invited to get a colonoscopy. https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/10/health/colonoscopy-study-q-and-a-wellness/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/10/health/colonoscopy-study-q-an...

darkerside 4y ago

You're walking a dangerous path, friend

JohnJamesRambo 4y ago

I’m so confused though, because based on my reading of it, it seems like the prostate screening thing where yes it might find cancer but no it won’t prevent deaths, so it might be better to just not know/do invasive procedures and treatment for it. Is that the wrong conclusion to reach from the data?

bitcurious 4y ago
You could think of screening as a bet on anti-cancer drugs getting better over the next N years.
- lupire 4y ago
  Or you could wait for better drugs before getting an invasive screening.
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  Prostate cancer is different from colon cancer. In the case of colon cancer detected in a colonoscopy they can snip it out right there without a lot of effort, risk or lost function. Surgery on the prostate is likely to cause all sorts of problems for men.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    And not having surgery for it can mean death. Steve Jobs, even it wasn't prostate cancer, should serve as good example of how not to tackle it. Or at least to show what not tackeling it looks like, because feel free to do what you want, but be aware of the consequences.
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      Jobs had pancreatic cancer. His holistic approach to dealing with it notwithstanding, that diagnosis is usually a death sentence no matter what you do.
      - 4y ago

prirun 4y ago

> 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 problem with your doctor's recommendation is that doctors recommend colonoscopy based on age, not whether you have any factors that might indicate colon cancer. I have no cancer of any kind anywhere in my family tree and they are always on me to get one. From the article, a doctor who still believes in colonoscopy for everyone: “The first message is that screening saves lives [Ed: against this study's data] and prevents cancer. If we could have a chance to start everyone at age 45, I’d like that."

greedo 4y ago
No one in my family history going back several generations had colo/rectal cancer. Yet I developed it at age 41. Diet is increasingly viewed as a factor.
- hef19898 4y ago
  I had it at 26, go figure. My petvtheory is that in orser to get the average age back to 50, you need someone like me for every 80 year old, statistics are a bitch. That also means my children will have screening coloscopies starting age 16.
- Findecanor 4y ago
  Have you got your genes tested? People can have Lynch syndrome and not develop cancer. Colon cancer is also a silent danger in that it can grow for years without any noticeable symptoms. I got colon cancer at age 35 (despite being a vegetarian, BTW), and it was first then that suspicion was raised that there could be a hereditary component - which was later confirmed by a gene test.
Clent 4y ago
The study does not say that coloscopies don't help. The study measures a difference in the study's population. The study does indicate they don't affect outcomes as much as expected. However, their affect is positive. The study's measured affect has wide errors bars indicating a larger sample size is needed. Subsequent studies could show the affect is more inline with expectations but are unlikely to show less affect. The question as to whether this will be used to reinforce hesitancy for this procedure; we can already see it in the comment. Logic and reason are not naturally occurring traits. I predict this will be used to move more people into the control group. Going against medical advice is anecdotally meaningful.

hammock 4y ago

>The problem with the title is that it might lead individuals to believe they shouldn't bother with getting a colonoscopy. Dangerous misinformation!! Censor!! I have reported the author, Angus Chen, to his employer. Or you could just comment...

imgabe 4y ago

Do people really ignore their doctor's advice because they saw a headline? I'm sure there are some examples, but that can't be the norm. Obviously a colonscopy can still be indicated for an individual even if it doesn't help by doing it en masse for everyone. Specific symptoms could indicate a colonoscopy would provide more information and there are a number of other conditions where it would be used besides colon cancer. I can't realistically see anyone saying "No thanks, doc, I'm not going to get that colonoscopy you recommended, because I saw a headline" This trend of saying a thing is bad because you can imagine some unbelievably stupid person misinterpreting it and misusing it is getting out of hand. At some point people are responsible for their own decisions.