Schwitzer with another instance of the media’s non-critical pro-screening bias. This time, the Chicago Sun-Times with another irresponsible article on prostate cancer screening. I guess the evidence doesn’t sell papers.
Related posts:
- Will patients accept the limitations of prostate cancer screening?
- How screening for prostate cancer can be a gamble, and why either screening or not has consequences
- Should I get a PSA test for prostate cancer? A new study shows that screening for prostate cancer doesn’t necessarily save lives
- Prostate cancer screening in blacks, and the lack of balanced information
- Prostate cancer screening in men over 75
- Who’s not happy with the new prostate cancer screening recommendations?
- Early cancer screening isn’t always better
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 5 comments }
Kevin, not only does the evidence not sell papers, it doesn’t seem to have much impact on decisions of any sort, including those of practicing physicians, jurors, legislators, voters, buyers, etc. I am convinced that we are living in a post-enlightenment age of neo-superstion.
The “evidence” is 5 years old (2002). New evidence supersedes it and is more compelling in my opinion. The one contrary study published since that recommendation is from the Northeastern VA with authors who have a longtime hostility to screening.
Prostate cancer mortality rates have fallen for the first time in history over the last 3 years. Maybe PSA screening is doing this? The ultimate endpoint for any study is mortality.
Eliot, you keep mentioning this new evidence forever, but nobody has seen any references from you. Not only that, you seem to think there is something wrong with informing people of the uncertainty and letting them decide. Do you think men don’t have brains to decide for themserlves based on the discussion of potential benefits and risks? (you might have a point about men not having brains, though…)
As far as anon 7:05 post, end point of RCT is mortality reduction in screened group vs non screened group when other conditions are the same such as access to treatment, etc.. A simple drop in rates overtime could be due to better treatment. Can you at least show that rates dropped more in countries with wide-spread screening?
Talking about free screening. I just saw a post on my company’s bulletin board offering it on-site. Wonder if they bother to inform men about benefits and risks and uncertainty of evidence. Doubt it.
Diora, if everyone went by you, then noone would ever know they had any illnesses ever! You are totally against all diagnostic and preventative testing and procedures.
So, why dont you give us all the information about how many lives have been lost directly from the testing and procedures vs how many lives have been saved by these tests and procedures? Do you honestly think that enough lives are lost from complications of tests and procedures that everyone should now risk getting all illnesses just because YOU dont believe in testing?
Please when you quote these numbers also put in the reference as to the number of lives saved. Show us that more lives have been lost from complications of a colonoscopy vs cancer lives saved from having one.
If your numbers dont outweigh the others then maybe you should stop this ever tiring preaching of yours.
Comments on this entry are closed.