They Said What?

Home » screenings » Screening for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Doesn’t Save Lives: USPSTF

Screening for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Doesn’t Save Lives: USPSTF

Do you know whether heartburn pills are safe for long-term use?

Quizzify knows. Click to learn more.

batman_color_by_txboi001-d4ad6u5Stop the presses, Batman! You mean, we’ve all been taken in by the Jokers of wellness? Screening for diabetes, a mainstay of America’s most deceitful industry of artful dodgers (except for politicians, that is), makes no difference to mortality even after 10 years of follow-up. Guess what does? Treatment.

So, for everyone out there who doesn’t actually understand data, population, health or care management (you know who you are, raise your hands…there, doesn’t it feel better to admit your own limitations?), actually treating disease is more important than trying to detect diseases that most people don’t have or that won’t benefit from early detection.

We’ll be writing more about this in the future, but suffice to say for now that yet another card in the wellness industry’s inestimable house has fallen.

via Screening for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Screening for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus | Annals of Internal Medicine.

Declare your independence from wellness intrusion. Quizzify.

When wellness doesn’t work, Quizzify does


  1. Brad F says:

    You should also read the commentary. Its a nice side piece and provides a good counterpoint to the guideline.

    Additionally, USPTF very measured in what they say screening can and cannot do. I am no shill for anything DM industry related, but a 10 year time horizon is short, and mortality is one of many outcomes patients want to improve. The narrowly tailored studies we do have retrofit a very heterogenous group of people. Theres lots of stuff we dont know and USPTF conclusion so much as says it.

    I get your point–we have to throttle back on overscreening and disease mongering, but your post is a tad dramatic for what the citation conveys.


    • whynobodybelievesthenumbers says:

      thanks for the comment. I get your point too. Sometimes we get a tad dramatic (just a teeny bit). Some things (like this) are perhaps more nuanced than we give them credit for.


    • Vik Khanna says:

      “Theres lots of stuff we dont know and USPTF conclusion so much as says it.” — A statement of humility heard rarely in American medicine generally and never to my knowledge in wellness.

      As for drama….this was just cheeky good fun. Drama was the wellness coordinator who spent her days chugging Pepsi (but, all natural with real sugar and not HFCS) and spooning peanut butter out of jar, who burst into tears in a meeting when I told her wellness team that their clinically oriented approach to wellness (every employee MUST know their numbers) was meaningless charade. Now, that’s drama.


In the immortal words of the great philosopher Pat Benatar, hit me with your best shot.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: