According to the study, if you receive a colonoscopy your risk of dying from colorectal cancer was 0.28% compared with a 0.31% risk if you didn't receive one. So a 0.03% excess mortality rate.
Colonoscopies themselves carry a risk serious complications: 1 in 200 (0.5%).
0.5% is over ten times higher than the excess mortality of receiving no screening at all.
So, for the overwhelming majority of people, these screenings may be doing more harm than good. That's what we get for pushing a screening procedure that had minimal evidence-based research backing it. Hoodwinked again!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,223,916
@previous (B)
If your common sense told you the risk of serious complications was 0.5%, riding beside a baseline excess mortality rate of 0.03%, then you should stop everything you're doing and become a medical researcher.
Common sense to me is not pushing an invasive medical procedure on everyone and attempting to guilt trip anyone who questions it before any studies are done supporting its efficacy.
> If your common sense told you the risk of serious complications was 0.5%, riding beside a baseline excess mortality rate of 0.03%, then you should stop everything you're doing and become a medical researcher.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,223,923
@1,223,921 (C) > So getting a colonoscopy reduces mortality by nearly 10%.
Correct. That's more or less the relative risk.
> (Divide 0.28% by 0.31%, don't subtract.)
You provided an entirely different statistic. Neither is "right" or "wrong". It's the interpretation that matters.
Think of it like this, let's suppose we find a procedure to reduce your chance of dying from a lightening strike 10000x fold. That's an exceedingly large reduction in mortality!
What's the procedure? We just dip you in molten iron and make the entire outer shell of your body a Faraday cage. Your risk of having serious complications from this is only 999,999 in 1,000,000!
Relative risk, in itself, is not such a useful measure here or there without context.
> There's not a single "Centre" affiliated with JHU.
Wait, to be clear, are you nitpicking over my British spelling? Or are you seriously saying you did an entire MD and PhD at Johns Hopkins and you've never heard of Sidney Kimmel/Bayview??
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,223,939
@previous (E)
In the study I mentioned in the OP, the groups which did and did not receive screening were randomly assigned ahead of time, so, no, not in this case.
But what you mention is a problem for retrospective studies that use statistics of the general population. That's why randomized prospective trials are so important.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,223,943
@previous (E)
They got them at the rate specified by various medical organizations. Although, those guidelines have not, with any level of seriousness, been based on rigorous studies or data. So I guess you could further argue that everyone getting colonoscopies that doesn't have a family history of colorectal cancer is getting them unnecessarily.
However, if the study had gone the other way couldn't one argue they were depriving the control group of necessary screening?
Point is, before the study no one really knew what was and wasn't necessary.
spectacles joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,223,961
Unless you have cancer. Colon cancer is super common, and super treatable with early detection. I'd say it's probably best to take the advice of your doctor and if they say it's the best course of action -at any age, it's likely best to heed their suggestion and schedule a procedure with the gastroenterologist they refer you to. Since insurance pays for routine screenings and it can save you from ass cancer.
Which OP likely wouldn't care if you had. Which is weird, considering how about your ass this is. It's just kinda weird. U know?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 58 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,223,974
@previous (spectacles)
Or we could act like adults and not rely on having other people tell us what to think, especially considering I've already handed you all the relevant information you need. I'd venture a guess and say the overwhelming majority or problems humans have gotten themselves into throughout all of history has been exactly this: outsourcing critical thinking to other people.
👁👃👁 to medical doctors, who's
👄 👂 -entire lives are dedicated
☝️ to being outsourced expertise
trained specifically to know
better than me what relevant
information I need, and that
makes you redundant. You have
handed me a waste of your time,
and believe me, I've considered
none of it. Have fun lying about
being a doctor. In case you were
wondering, yes I don't believe you,
no, that's not even the reason I
wouldn't trust you to be well
informed on issues related to
medical doctoring anyway. But,
I still think you're full of shit,
it just so happens that you lying
about being a doctor is FITTING,
prove me wrong, Dr.anonymous. you
know so much about asses I'm sure
you can pull a medical license out
one in less time than it takes to
Google "medical license.jpg." and
"How to photoshop false documents
For idiots."
🫱 - and you expect people to value your critical assertions over their own critical thinking which says you're likely not an expert or more that even modestly informed?
I already assume you don't read. You probably do tho. Lol