I've heard that medical screenings are useful, and also that medical screenings don't improve health outcomes.
Do medical screenings improve health outcomes? Are they worth their risks?
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityI've heard that medical screenings are useful, and also that medical screenings don't improve health outcomes.
Do medical screenings improve health outcomes? Are they worth their risks?
This answer is based on (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-skeptical-look-at-screening-tests/)
Here are some of the criteria for a good screening test:
Using mammography as an example, "If 1,000 women [from the general population] are screened yearly for 10 years starting at age 50":
In the case of PSA testing for prostate cancer,
To prevent one death from prostate cancer, 1,068 men would have to be screened and 48 treated. But here’s the kicker: there was no reduction in all-cause mortality. The overall death rate was the same in the screened group as in the unscreened group.
The recommendations are:
"The USPSTF is an independent group of experts who keep up with the current medical literature and issue recommendations based on the best available evidence."
They recommend:
They recommend "against doing these tests as routine screening tests because they do more harm than good":
The above are just samples. Their full set of recommendations are available here. Most screenings have customized recommendations for particular risk groups.
The article concludes:
Screening tests can be very valuable but they can sometimes do more harm than good. They should be chosen judiciously, and the USPSTF offers sound recommendations based on the latest available evidence.