It drives Chris crazy very poor practice
Fleas!!
- Thread starter HAH
- Start date
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
What's private screening?
We get mail drops and companies who advertise full health screens For silly money then if they find anything do nothing they tell you to go to your GP.
This is a really neat leaflet from the NHS that explains the main issues around screening (including private screening, i.e. paid for by the individual, run by a company set up to 'do' screening with all the incentives that involves): https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/breas...g_a_private_screening_test_FINAL_Nov_2014.pdf
The main thing is that if you have symptoms or a recognised condition, this isn't screening. Screening in this sense is about looking for issues where there's no indication of a problem (although the word is used in lots of different ways, some of them wrong).
The main thing is that if you have symptoms or a recognised condition, this isn't screening. Screening in this sense is about looking for issues where there's no indication of a problem (although the word is used in lots of different ways, some of them wrong).
- Location
- Andorra and Spain
That leaflet is great, but I don't think the same thought process can be exactly applied to dogs, especially ones which live in places where there is a known threat of infection or disease, or for those who are fed an atypical diet. Will early detection of one of those diseases improve the chances of a positive outcome, and minimise damage? Indubitably. Can keeping an eye on things like iron levels and excretory organs indicate if there may be something amiss in the dog's diet? For sure. I just don't see the negatives of doing routine blood and biochemistry panels. Especially remembering that dogs don't tell you if they are experiencing symptoms until those symptoms are pronounced.
You're absolutely right, if you/your dog has a known increased risk of disease, or is in a higher-risk population due to e.g. age, diet or environment, then this means they have an increased pre-assessment risk in comparison to dogs/people without known risks (bearing in mind this is all applied at the population level rather than at the level of the individual).
But people generally assume the tests are 100% reliable, when they're not. So every time you test for anything, there is a chance that the test comes up with an inaccurate result - which can lead to more testing, invasive procedures, worry, distress etc. When something is discovered, the impetus is then to 'do something about it' whereas you don't know how it may or may not have progressed if it hadn't been found. Clearly if you're looking for markers of specific conditions or things like dietary deficiencies, then this is a different beast in that I guess you know your threshold for action, or whether you use it to alert you to other, clearer indicators.
It's very difficult when applying this to dogs because as you say, they're generally very good at masking symptoms and hiding discomfort, and we're entirely responsible for their health and well-being. But the basic principle - that tests are not always right, and the more repeat tests you do the more likely you'll get errors - is quite often overlooked in animal (and human) health. and that's before you get to how good the people and the equipment are - it seems that the quality and consistency of biochemical analysers used in veterinary medicine varies a lot (I'll try to attach the pdf if this doesn't work): Rishniw M, Pion PD, Maher T. The quality of veterinary in‐clinic and reference laboratory biochemical testing. Veterinary clinical pathology. 2012 Mar;41(1):92-109.
Jumping off my soapbox now, sorry to bang on...
Jacqui-S
Moderator
- Location
- Fife, Scotland
These are groups where screening is worthwhile.
Going back to humans - bowel screening developed in Dundee to detect cancer early, east of Scotland having highest risk of bowel cancer (in the UK at least) so it is a test targeted to a high risk population (though now rolled out nationally).
Vegetarian/vegan women particularly if menstruating regularly have a high risk of iron deficiency so we have a low threshold for measuring FBC/Ferritin.
People with inflammatory arthropathies like Rheumatoid disease have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease hence annual screening reviews.
Screening is best when you know you have a decent yield to offset the morbidity of anxiety and detection of irrelevant "abnormals".
I was interested in the screening leaflet @HAH - I like it but, in England is your bowel screening really from 60 yrs? In Scotland it is from 50 yo. Packet reliably drops through the door within a week of your 50th birthday (though we have also moved on from the 3 window FOB smear to a QFit single test wgich is more accurate).
As part of our annual physical check you get blood screened for a variety of things. It's up to you if you want to do it, but it is covered by our health care. This past year it would be the only way to know I had very low B12. Quinn gets a blood panel at her annual check and it costs extra and isn't part of the vet check but is good to have for a baseline, like @Emily said above. They also test for heartworm annually before preventative will be given, so might as well check it all!
As so often, Scotland is more advanced
In England it's being changed from 60 to 50, but the wheels are turning slowly: Bowel cancer screening: programme overview
Jacqui-S
Moderator
- Location
- Fife, Scotland
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
It's 50 in Aus too.
You might be interested in the documentary about this woman: Elizabeth Holmes - Wikipedia. I think the documentary title is Out for Blood.
- Location
- Buckinghamshire UK
I am diabetic so I'm supposed to get tested every six months. I'm bad at this. My dogs, on the other hand, get tested for various things bang on time. They are completely dependent on me to keep them healthy so it is my duty to get them tested and give them the best care available. A few mls of blood while I am streaming treats is not a problem if I can do something to keep them well.
- Location
- South Manchester England
I got the Qfit test this time rather than the three. Apart from sensitivity, I’m sure it’s more user friendly too than collecting three samples. As a retired midwife (and dog owner) poo holds no fear for me, but I could imagine people being squeamish.That's good @HAH - the QFit test has better sensitivity/specificity and is so much easier to use, uptake I believe is much better.
Glad you are catching up