5 ms·

You mean I get scoped every few years and it’s not even a thing??!

csours 3y ago
The problem with medical interventions, especially tests, is that they sometimes work. There will always be success stories. The big question is: are those success stories worth it, and are there other paths to those same success stories.
- haldujai 3y ago
  > 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.
  - Vecr 3y ago
    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.
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      For my procedures, they used a continuous X-ray to monitor the location of the equipment. I'm pretty sure I was more irradiated than by a CT scan.
    - haldujai 3y ago
      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.
  - rocqua 3y ago
    I think the original sentence was meant more like 'the problem with unproductive tests is...' Where unproductive means that the total cost benefit of doing the test is negative. And even procedures that never help can 'cure' people just by regression to the mean.
  - csours 3y ago
    > 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. > Yes, in the US other options include high sensitivity FOBT, FIT, sDNA-FIT and CT colonography. Statistically, yes - but individual humans don't really think in statistics, we think in stories. My buddy won big at the casino, maybe I will too. I'm sure my dear fellows on this website will never be so stupid as to be motivated by a story about winning at a casino, but it is very EXPENSIVE to apply this level of rational rigor to every part of your life.
    - haldujai 3y ago
      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.
nirav72 3y ago
Dont think its suppose to be every few years. I was told it’s good for 10 years. Unless you are in high risk category. Specifically one with a family history of colon cancer. That’s what I was told when I got one as soon as I turned 50. I don’t have to get another one until I’m closer to 60.

The problem with medical interventions, especially tests, is that they sometimes work. There will always be success stories. The big question is: are those success stories worth it, and are there other paths to those same success stories.

haldujai 3y ago
> 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.
- Vecr 3y ago
  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.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    For my procedures, they used a continuous X-ray to monitor the location of the equipment. I'm pretty sure I was more irradiated than by a CT scan.
  - haldujai 3y ago
    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.
- rocqua 3y ago
  I think the original sentence was meant more like 'the problem with unproductive tests is...' Where unproductive means that the total cost benefit of doing the test is negative. And even procedures that never help can 'cure' people just by regression to the mean.
- csours 3y ago
  > 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. > Yes, in the US other options include high sensitivity FOBT, FIT, sDNA-FIT and CT colonography. Statistically, yes - but individual humans don't really think in statistics, we think in stories. My buddy won big at the casino, maybe I will too. I'm sure my dear fellows on this website will never be so stupid as to be motivated by a story about winning at a casino, but it is very EXPENSIVE to apply this level of rational rigor to every part of your life.
  - haldujai 3y ago
    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.

nirav72 3y ago

Dont think its suppose to be every few years. I was told it’s good for 10 years. Unless you are in high risk category. Specifically one with a family history of colon cancer. That’s what I was told when I got one as soon as I turned 50. I don’t have to get another one until I’m closer to 60.