BMA warns against unnecessary screening tests in private sector
BMJ 2005; 331 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7515.475-b (Published 01 September 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;331:475All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
This article is misleading in that it decribes whole body screening
with Magnetic Resonance Imaging scan which is equivalent to 100 chest
Xrays. MRI does not use radiation therefore does not run the risk of
developing fatal cancers. Any potential risks associated with MRI are
unproven to date. Most unregulated whole body screening scans are
performed by CT not MRI which is associated with significant radiation
dose.
I do agree that unregulated whole body screening is unproven with
potentially harmful outcomes.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
That is how the businesses have been run in the private sectors of
health care delivery institutions. Unnecessary screenings have been
routine work in the private clinics, labs and nursing homes. Not only that but
other medical and surgical interventions have also been used in the same
manner to some extent. That is all about money.
After all, money matters most!
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Inaccurate dose equivalence
Following on from the previous comments concerning confusion between MRI and CT scans and radiation dose, I should like to point out that even if whole body CT is being considered, the dose estimates are inaccurate by an order of magnitude. According to 'Making the Best Use of a Department of Clinical Radiology' (RCR, 2003) the typical dose for a chest x-ray is 0.02mSv. The combined dose for a CT head, chest and abdomen would be 20mSv, thus equvalent to 1000 chest x-rays not 100 as the article states.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests