April 27, 2010
Editorial: Coronary calcium scores still not ready for prime time
On his Cardobrief blog, Larry Husten captures the latest chapter in the promotion of coronary calcium screening. There’s a new study in JAMA that says the technique can improve the classification of heart risk.
Husten writes:
“Once again a study has turned up results that appear to favor widespread application of calcium screening. And once again an editorial has pointed out that the technique is still not ready for prime time. (And we predict that once again the proponents of calcium scans will trumpet the study as absolute justification for widespread adoption of calcium screening.)
…
An accompanying editorial by John Ioannidis and Ioanna Tzoulaki points out that the statistical improvement in risk prognostication, even if validated in different populations and studies, does not necessarily mean the technique should be put into widespread use: it has not yet been “demonstrated that the added accuracy in risk stratification can actually aid clinicians in better treating patients or improving their clinical outcomes.”
“Moreover,” they write, “cost and harms may be major issues. Computed tomography costs $200 to $600 and routine implementation at the population level can be very expensive. The lifetime excess cancer risk due to radiation exposure from a single examination at age 40 years is 9 cancers per 100 000 men and 28 cancers per 100 000 women. This risk should be taken into account in formal risk-benefit analyses.”
Addendum:
See also the thorough reporting by MedPageToday.com.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like