New Breast Screening Limits Face Reversal

cp418

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126325763413725559.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

otter

Interesting article.  I would contest the first part of the very first statement, which says (hold on while I go back and see exactly what it says ... ), "Annual mammograms, seemingly on their way out under new federal guidelines last year, may be coming back."

This is just MHO, but I think that sentence overstates the situation a bit. 

Annual mammograms, and screening mammograms for women in their 40's (note that those are 2 different issues) were strongly defended by lots of groups.  Some of the opponents of the 2009 USPSTF guidelines were physicians' groups and hospitals that are not affiliated with companies making the machines.  (Read the whole article.  It covers a lot of ground -- not just the question of whether annual mammograms were threatened and have now been rescued.  The article should make us think about the big picture.)

Another thing we should probably realize is that, despite the headline, the USPSTF is not considering "reversing" its guidelines. Those guidelines will stand -- they've been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and it will exist on library shelves or e-catalogs forever.  The USPSTF could publish a withdrawal (unlikely), or a revision (more probable).  A revision could occur the next time the USPSTF reviews the "evidence".

What peeved me about all this from the very beginning is that the USPSTF guidelines were being considered in isolation.  There are lots of organizations, review panels, and professional groups, that review medical evidence on subjects and issue guidelines.  So, why not get them all together at a big convocation, and have them look at all the "evidence" (RCT and otherwise), and come up with consensus guidelines?  It's been done that way in the past.

Instead, our legislators in Congress are preparing to countermand the USPSTF guidelines.  That has happened before, too; and I'm not sure it's always a good thing. Who should be making decisions about our medical care:  review panels consisting of clinical researchers, practicing physicians, and public health experts who have nothing to gain or lose personally; or a few hundred politicians (lawyers, mostly) who are concerned about their upcoming re-election campaigns?

Just wondering....

otter 

iodine

and, of course, the $$$ war chests needed for re-election.

Ezscriiibe

My first reaction was, Oh, a Wall Street Journal article.

Then my second reaction was, well, pretty much the same.

So I'm considering the source.