You mean I get scoped every few years and it’s not even a thing??!
The big question is: are those success stories worth it, and are there other paths to those same success stories.
Do you prefer medical interventions that never work?
> are there other paths to those same success stories.
Yes, in the US other options include high sensitivity FOBT, FIT, sDNA-FIT and CT colonography.
The attributable cancer risk for CT colonography is a rounding error, and considerably lower than the quoted perforation risk.
That said as a radiologist I personally still opt for colonoscopy screening, it is however an option for patients.
Where unproductive means that the total cost benefit of doing the test is negative. And even procedures that never help can 'cure' people just by regression to the mean.
Are there medical interventions that never work - aside from bad faith hypotheticals? Even placebo works pretty often.
The article under discussion is all about teasing apart confusing and conflicting data in medical studies. The comment I replied to asks why they have been directed to do something useless.
>> are there other paths to those same success stories.
> Yes, in the US other options include high sensitivity FOBT, FIT, sDNA-FIT and CT colonography.
Statistically, yes - but individual humans don't really think in statistics, we think in stories. My buddy won big at the casino, maybe I will too. I'm sure my dear fellows on this website will never be so stupid as to be motivated by a story about winning at a casino, but it is very EXPENSIVE to apply this level of rational rigor to every part of your life.
All of those are endorsed by the USPSTF I.e. reimbursed by insurance and available in the US.