Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Mar 14, 2018 at 14:42 comment added Benjol This issue is crying out for a nice analogy.
Mar 12, 2018 at 10:00 comment added matt_black @Muschkopp Giuliani's numbers can be both correct and completely misleading. 5-year survival in prostate cancer is completely unrelated to mortality from prostate cancer. So his numbers are technically right but incredibly misleading giving the opposite impression to the truth. The point being that screening improves 5-year survival even if the day every patient dies is unchanged at all by screening.
Mar 12, 2018 at 9:56 comment added matt_black @LorenPechtel Even that isn't obvious. Many of the reviews failed to find a significant change even in cancer-specific mortality (almost none fond a measurable change in all cause mortality).
Mar 12, 2018 at 9:53 comment added Muschkopp The point of @LorenPechtel is important IMO. While this answer indeed answers the question about the general benefit of routine screening, the numbers given by Giulani can still be accurate (given that he had prostate cancer).
Mar 11, 2018 at 2:13 comment added Loren Pechtel I have a problem with one bit here: "By choosing not to have the PSA test you can live a similar length of life, have little to no difference in your risk of dying from prostate cancer". The second part is false--by having the test you lower your risk of dying due to prostate cancer. It's just needless treatment causes as much of an increase as the benefit.
Mar 8, 2018 at 12:02 history edited matt_black CC BY-SA 3.0
added summary at top of answer
Aug 21, 2014 at 4:47 comment added Benjol The closing blockquote would almost be worth putting at the top as a tl;dr;
Aug 20, 2014 at 20:30 history edited matt_black CC BY-SA 3.0
minor formatting fix on final quote
Feb 3, 2013 at 22:14 history edited matt_black CC BY-SA 3.0
Added some recent references and summary
Feb 18, 2012 at 12:48 vote accept matt_black
Oct 30, 2011 at 20:37 history answered matt_black CC BY-SA 3.0