On March 10 and 11, the (U.S. Preventive Services) Task Force will meet in person for the first time in eight months to once again take up prostate cancer and several other topics that were unable to be addressed due to its previous meeting’s cancellation. I no longer work for AHRQ and have had no involvement in planning this meeting. It is my sincere hope, however, that neither the USPSTF nor the federal government will be cowed by the prospect of triggering another political firestorm into soft-pedaling the scientific evidence that PSA testing does more harm than good.
If you need the back story, he provides that as well, either in the body text of his blog or in links.
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.
Charles Hodges MD
March 7, 2011 at 9:24 amI am really concerned about having the feds decide anything about medicine that keeps us for looking for treatable disease. PSA as a screening tool is not perfect, but it has saved the lives of several younger men that I have tested over the years. My experience would be considered anecdotal, but for the 40 year old fellow with an elevated Psa who turned out to have Prostate cancer and is alive today, it is 100%. I did the test because of his symptoms and his family history.
Gary Schwitzer
March 7, 2011 at 11:22 amOf course it could be argued that the example you cite is not – technically – a screening example.
Someone with symptoms and with a family history is in a higher risk category.
Screening – by definition – is looking for problems in otherwise seemingly healthy people with no signs of problems.
The semantics are important.
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