NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.

Screening for Alzheimer's: What Good Can It Do?

Posted By

Categories

Tags

I could write about different screening test controversies every day and not get caught up (but, indeed, may have a screening-post-of-the-day every day this week).

Alan Cassels, a drug policy researcher and author at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, and publisher of the Media Doctor Canada website (sibling to our HealthNewsReview.org site), has published a column in the November issue of Common Ground magazine under the headline, “Screening for Alzheimer’s: What good can it do?

His conclusion:

“…the drive to ‘screen’ people for Alzheimer’s is not being seriously questioned in the medical community because most people believe strongly in the “test early, test often” paradigm. That paradigm is not working out with mammography and prostate cancer screening and the question we should be asking is “Why should we expect anything different with Alzheimer’s?”

It’s a thoughtful analysis of the “test early, test often” message that dominates many screening messages. I encourage you to read the full column.

You might also like

Comments (6)

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Michael Kirsch, M.D.

November 2, 2010 at 8:44 am

There is a fallacy, of course, in many of the ‘test early’ strategies. Discovering a condition early may not change the natural history of the disease. For example, we can now discover lung cancer sooner than we could 20 years ago. But, are these folks really living longer? The term for this is lead time bias and this can confuse the public and those who report on health issues.

Ivan Oransky

November 2, 2010 at 3:48 pm

Good to keep in mind. Also, from one of my former students:
Totaled Recall: Is an Alzheimer’s Memory Screening Test Worth It?
http://bit.ly/9LGssT
Ivan Oransky, MD
Executive Editor, Reuters Health
Adjunct Assistant Professor, New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program
Treasurer, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
Blogger, Embargo Watch http://embargowatch.wordpress.com (a blog independent of Reuters that does not necessarily reflect its views)
Blogger, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com (ditto)
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky

Bix

November 6, 2010 at 3:55 pm

I will have to read Mr. Cassels article…
In the debate on screening, I often see reference to increased mortality, living longer. I don’t see as often reference to quality-of-life. Sometimes interventions reduce quality of life without extending life appreciably. This is a thorny topic because quality-of-life is subjective. I’d still like to see it wrestled.
(Maybe you’ve written about this elsewhere. I just found your site. I’m enjoying it.)