Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Prince_LunaShy t1_ixng67c wrote

If screening was 100% accurate with no false negatives or positives, it'd be fine. In reality, if you test 100,000 people, maybe 1000 of those tests are probably wrong, one way or the other (depending on the test ofc). You also have no way to tell which ones are likely to be accurate because it's a random screening and not someone with an identified issue. Especially with diseases/conditions that are rare, this makes screening both innefective and overly expensive, as the false negatives and positives will require further involvement to correct.

6

[deleted] t1_ixo31n7 wrote

[deleted]

3

No_Management9536 t1_ixov9ni wrote

It is not a question of the test being or not Good enough, it depends on the population. Even 99% S/S tests when applied to a population with very low risk of being sick will result in false conclusions. That’s why we must consider the “pre-test probability”, which is basically the presumed prevalence. If you take a pregnancy test and use it in young females sexually active with their periods delayed, and then use the same test in nuns with regular periods, the accuracy will be very different.

7

blusteryflatus t1_ixogohd wrote

How do orthos manage all findings above? Do all of them get a surgical procedure?

2

QueenRooibos t1_ixojbnx wrote

Well, some of us, despite symptoms, get told to wait until it is very painful and then get a total hip replacement.

0