[hef19898]

Now that is a useful discussion. The more I think about the study (the article covering it is just sh*), the more I think it would have been better to compare how many people had an actual colonoscopy between the two groups, compare everything that was compared between a) people with invite who did show up and those without invite that showed up b) people with invite who didn't show up vs. those without invite who didn't show up and c) those who showed up vs. those who didn't (the most important question). The latter can then be used to gauge overall usefullness by age brackets, gender, region and so on. Obviously, as soon as there are risk factors or other test results, we talk a different game all together.

As it stands, this study, while statistically very good, doesn't help anything to answer the really important questions and only confuses people by causing discussions about the study methods, then used to derive conclusions about colonoscopies (utter nonsense, but first principle thinking using supporting science /domains is really en vogue at the moment) instead of discussing the usefulness of colonoscopies in increasing survivability, early detection and decreasing probability of colon cancer.

[ricardobeat]

[removed - beating a dead horse]

The whole study is about the usefulness of regular colonoscopies as a tool to reduce mortality in the general population, and the surprise comes from the already known "usefulness of colonoscopies in increasing survivability, early detection and decreasing probability of colon cancer" not leading to a decrease in overall death rate. See the other comments in this thread about the intent-to-treat principle and why you can't compare only people who accepted the exam.

[DanBC]

I think people need to understand that colorectal cancer isn't one thing. There are a range of cancers that occur in the colorectal system.

Finding a cancer earlier (in terms of staging) is probably a good thing. But finding a cancer earlier (in terms of age of the patient) possibly means they have a harder to treat, more aggressive, cancer. This might be why there's diminishing returns on population screening in younger people. Older people have easier to treat cancers and pre-cancerous polyps.

[peteradio]

Don't be a jerk, they are suggesting a repurposing of this studies data, which I wouldn't be surprised to learn is already in the works. That's not to say this study was done wrong, it is assessing a different probe. The thing about invitations is that there are more than one way to make one, this is a single snapshot in time of how a population responds to one particular kind of invite.

[hef19898]

You were both to fast for me to edit, and you put it better than I did.

No idea if the study was done correctly or not, I am no expert in medical studies. So to rephrase it, I'd like to see a follow up study as outlined above. Reason being that the corrent one requires a lot of nuance to properly interpret (and I somehow fail to see the point of the results so far, but that ir purely on me), and we all know that technical and scientific nuance is impossible to come by in public discurs. So the risk I see is, that the current study can be seen as showing colonoscopies are pointless and needless, a piint I don't see the study making. And that is not the studies fault, it is us laypeoples and the medias fault on how we cover and consume reporting about medical studies, or scientific studies in general.