4 ms·

I was going to post the same thing – Poland launched a nationwide campaign two years ago to get all people over 50 years old (above 40 if they had family histor

I was going to post the same thing – Poland launched a nationwide campaign two years ago to get all people over 50 years old (above 40 if they had family history) in for a colonoscopy. However, the linked article is working with a European study done a decade ago (EDIT: I’m wrong about that). There may have once been greater differences between American and European approaches.

ekianjo 3y ago
Data does not seem to indicate better survival odds so whats the point?
- hackandthink 3y ago
  There would be an reduction of 37% in diagnoses if everyone would have accepted the treatment (but no data for mortality). How significant is reducing a small risk (1%) significantly? (Base rate fallacy) "The right graph compares those results to the observed outcomes for acceptors in our branch of the multiverse, where they did have colonoscopies. At the end of the trial, there’s a reduction of 37%. Unfortunately, data aren’t available to do this for mortality,..."
  - hackandthink 3y ago
    https://asteriskmag.com/media/pages/issues/04/you-re-invited-to-a-colonoscopy/31771328c9-1696013432/dynomight01b.svg https://asteriskmag.com/media/pages/issues/04/you-re-invited... Actually I am confused by this graph (right side): 1% of refusers are diagnosed with CRC versus 1.4% of would be acceptors would be diagnosed with CRC. So refusing is better than accepting. I guess I am missing something.
    - geosh 3y ago
      It's in the article. You should read it. tl;dr - healthy individual without family history could be more likely to refuse the screening (less refuses were diagnosed with CRC than the control). This is the reason the study can't omit refuser from calculations.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    > (but no data for mortality). I have seen the data for mortality before in at least one publication if not more, and it clearly showed that the increase rate in diagnosis did not result in improved outcomes for survival, which is precisely why colonoscopy has a very bad ROI right now
cloudyq 3y ago
[dead]
alphaoverlord 3y ago
The nordicc trial was published last year. This is recent results, trials with 10 year followup take a long time to run. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2208375 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2208375

ekianjo 3y ago

Data does not seem to indicate better survival odds so whats the point?

hackandthink 3y ago
There would be an reduction of 37% in diagnoses if everyone would have accepted the treatment (but no data for mortality). How significant is reducing a small risk (1%) significantly? (Base rate fallacy) "The right graph compares those results to the observed outcomes for acceptors in our branch of the multiverse, where they did have colonoscopies. At the end of the trial, there’s a reduction of 37%. Unfortunately, data aren’t available to do this for mortality,..."
- hackandthink 3y ago
  https://asteriskmag.com/media/pages/issues/04/you-re-invited-to-a-colonoscopy/31771328c9-1696013432/dynomight01b.svg https://asteriskmag.com/media/pages/issues/04/you-re-invited... Actually I am confused by this graph (right side): 1% of refusers are diagnosed with CRC versus 1.4% of would be acceptors would be diagnosed with CRC. So refusing is better than accepting. I guess I am missing something.
  - geosh 3y ago
    It's in the article. You should read it. tl;dr - healthy individual without family history could be more likely to refuse the screening (less refuses were diagnosed with CRC than the control). This is the reason the study can't omit refuser from calculations.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  > (but no data for mortality). I have seen the data for mortality before in at least one publication if not more, and it clearly showed that the increase rate in diagnosis did not result in improved outcomes for survival, which is precisely why colonoscopy has a very bad ROI right now

cloudyq 3y ago

[dead]

alphaoverlord 3y ago

The nordicc trial was published last year. This is recent results, trials with 10 year followup take a long time to run. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2208375 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2208375