There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, −190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, −37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, −146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, −70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, −286 days to 430 days).
I don’t think that disagrees with me. Their 95% confidence interval contains both the possibility that it may cost you 146 days and gain you 146 days.
The examples brought forward are about cases where no studies have been run to find out the answer. We did run the studies for colonoscopy and the found no statistical significant effects on lifespan.
More specifically, I misread its endorsement of “colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy” as an endorsement of colonoscopy, which is explicitly separated later on.
The two procedures use the same equipment, but colonoscopy inspects the whole colon whereas sigmoidoscopy only inspects the last section of the colon.
This 2023 meta-analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine disagrees.
It’s been suggested that the phrase “no evidence” is quite often a bad sign.
From the meta-analysis you link:
I don’t think that disagrees with me. Their 95% confidence interval contains both the possibility that it may cost you 146 days and gain you 146 days.
The examples brought forward are about cases where no studies have been run to find out the answer. We did run the studies for colonoscopy and the found no statistical significant effects on lifespan.
You’re right! Retracting my comment.
More specifically, I misread its endorsement of “colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy” as an endorsement of colonoscopy, which is explicitly separated later on.
The two procedures use the same equipment, but colonoscopy inspects the whole colon whereas sigmoidoscopy only inspects the last section of the colon.