General discussions, page-34

Cheers, it comes down to what the study was investigating. Most of the article had to do with the efficacy of inviting people to have a colonoscopy. One paragraph had to do with comparing survival rates of people who did have a colonoscopy compared to people who were not invited to have the procedure. One clause in one sentence mentioned people who had a colonoscopy following an invitation- were given advice subsequently and may or may not have followed that advice.

Most people who have a colonoscopy do not have colorectal cancer and probably will never will have it or, if they do get it they may die of something else. So, the procedure would make no difference for most people.

About 1% or less, from the article, of people having the procedure will be found to have the disease. They have a percentage higher chance of surviving 10 years. They obviously, most of them, benefit from the investigation.

There is a third group. An important group. The are invited people who have an invitation and have the procedure and are found not to have the disease but are found to have indications that they may be more likely than others to develop the disease. Do they benefit? Only if they are given advice and they listen and act upon that advice.

The problem for researchers is that their study has to include all three goups- including those who do not attend and those who attend but do not listen and act. Likewise, those who make decisions on the allocation of scarce health resources must also take into account all three groups.

Something like that.

IMHO DYOR

And yes, I have had two colonoscopies, high risk group, and I pay attention to my diet, exercise and alcohol consumption.