4 ms·
Sure but procedural complications are actually quite rare, as alluded to in this article. Misses from operator error, suboptimal bowel prep, or inability to co
by haldujai 3y ago
Sure but procedural complications are actually quite rare, as alluded to in this article.
Misses from operator error, suboptimal bowel prep, or inability to complete the examination are more common and where we have the most potential for benefit from novel screening tests.
- riku_iki 3y ago> Sure but procedural complications are actually quite rare, as alluded to in this article. article actually says that perforation (requires emergency surgery as per article) is between 1 to 100 and 1 to 20000 base on some studies, which sounds very high if it is not mistake.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- timr 3y agoThe high end of that range is much higher than the baseline rates of colon cancer (also mentioned in the article), which are 90/100,000 in the USA. That's one thing that I wish the author had spent more time on.
- riku_iki 3y ago90/100k cancer rate is likely annual rate, while complication rate is likely per procedure, so you would need to multiply cancer rate by 3 (avg years between procedures) to have reasonable comparison.
- timr 3y agoYou can't just multiply by 3 (it's smaller than that), but yes, you need to adjust both. https://planetcalc.com/7044/ https://planetcalc.com/7044/ (Just to be clear: this is the wrong model. An annual rate of cancer (X%) at a population aggregate does not mean that you have X% independent probability of getting cancer per year. But even assuming that was true, you couldn't just multiply by 3.)
- haldujai 3y ago1 in 100 is old data, 1 to 20000 is not high. The study they cited had 0 in 12000. The real number is closer to 20000, both from more recent literature and personal experience.