SirSmattering Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g366 What are peoples thoughts? Looks like a pretty solid paper, and a fairly damming conclusion to me. The quote in the title came from the New York Times by the way, if you don't feel like ploughing through the paper the article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/health/study-adds-new-doubts-about-value-of-mammograms.html?hp&_r=1
CharonY Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Various cancer screens have been under scrutiny (including prostrate cancer). It is by far not the first study, but it certainly adds to the whole issue. In the end, it is a statistical problem. Cancer is still a relatively rare event and the false positive detection rate of screens is simply too high relative to that. Unless specificity of the diagnostic methods increase massively (and hopefully not the cancer rates), the impact on overall outcome is probably not going to be change much. Of course, a higher sensitivity and better early treatments could also contribute, though with low specificity overdiagnosis will remain an issue.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now