I didn’t. Once I looked at the numbers, it just didn’t feel like a close call.
-Christie
On Dec 11, 2014, at 4:40 PM, Work-related <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Just wondered, Christie, if you did a full Decision Analysis using the probabilities & values ? If not would be interesting to see how it compared to your 'intuitive' reaction given the probabilities ....
>
> Cheers, David
>
>
> On Dec 11, 2014, at 12:02 PM, write words < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
>
> Owen,
>
> I’m a journalist, not a physician, but I outlined the information that I believe women need to know to make an informed decision on mammography in this recent JAMA Internal Medicine essay. You can access the full text using this link .
>
> And here’s another recent piece that touches on some of these issues, The case against early cancer detection .
>
> Best,
> Christie
>
> Christie Aschwanden
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Website: www.christieaschwanden.com
> Blog: www.lastwordonnothing.com/category/christie/
> Twitter: @cragcrest
>
>
> On Dec 11, 2014, at 10:18 AM, OWEN DEMPSEY < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
>
> page 21 of WHO position paper on mammography states:
>
> "The association between mammography screening and overdiagnosis
> has been demonstrated consistently across studies and is likely to be
> supported by high-quality evidence. However, there is significant uncertainty
> about the magnitude of overdiagnosis in the different age groups,
> particularly in younger and older women. The estimates vary greatly
> (from 0% to 54%) according to the method used, the source of the data and
> the definition of overdiagnosis. Thus, the evidence based on the current
> available data is low. Two recent reviews estimated that for every one
> or two overdiagnosed cases, at least one death due to breast cancer was
> avoided, a balance between benefit and harm considered to be appropriate."
>
> This seems like an unhelpful conflation of issues. How can so much uncertainty about the rate of diagnosis tranlsate into so much certainty?
>
> What is a womans chances of being overdiagnosed on a first screening between 40 and 49 say? And what are her chances of havng her life saved by this screening episode?
>
> Owen
>
> On 11 December 2014 at 08:34, Juan Gérvas < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
>
> OMS: valoración del cribado de mamografía. No sin el consentimiento informado. Sólo con pruebas de calidad moderada.
> WHO position paper on mammography screening. Not without shared decision-making. O nly with moderate quality evidence.
> http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/137339/1/9789241507936_eng.pdf?ua=1&ua=1
> -un saludo
> -juan gérvas
>
>
>
|