3 ms·

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

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