June 11, 2011
Heart screening tests that should be screened more closely by consumers
“Some Heart Disease Screens May Be Unnecessary” – topic of a health consumer column in the New York Times. Excerpts:
Avoid: Several studies have suggested that expensive tests for biomarkers that are sometimes indicative of heart disease — such as C-reactive protein, a sign of systemic inflammation — are not cost-effective in generally healthy patients. More sophisticated testing should be done only in patients with known heart risks.
…
Some sophisticated, expensive heart disease screening tests may pose risks to the patient and may not be effective. For example, patients who receive CT angiography — in which multiple CT scans are used to produce a three-dimensional image of the heart — are exposed to amounts of radiation. According to a study published last month in The Archives of Internal Medicine, patients at low risk of heart disease who got this test were more likely to be treated aggressively with invasive and potentially risky procedures, but in the end were not less likely to have a heart attack or other coronary problem.
Addendum: Alain Braillon left this comment on my LinkedIn page:
“In 1923, Jules Romains wrote a comedy: “Knock or the Triumph of Medical Science” in which, thanks to frightening graphs, an inventive village doctor succeeds in turning the robust inhabitants into confirmed hypochondriacs.
In 1673, Molière pictured Fleurant, a money-hungry apothecary, as the supplier of unicorn’s horn to the “Imaginary Invalid”.
Now, who will write the “Healthy unwitting”?
We must recognize the discrepancy between the expected and the actual impact of screening in real life settings. Disease mongering and overdiagnosis are a source of harm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imaginary_Invalid“
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