Health check Privately

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 294929
  • Start date Start date
kingandy2nd said:
Yes. I get the NuffieldHealth 360+ assessment every 2 years. My company pays for mine, and I pay for my other half to have one done at the some time. (I just look like we get 2 for the price of one). It's about a grand per person, but there is a cheaper one with fewer tests.
Click to expand...

Life is tough for the people who can't afford good health.
 
kingandy2nd said:
ps - never been fingered on my tests, they have a blood test for the prostate.
Click to expand...
The PSA is no good on its own.

My PSA is fine, but there are suggestions that my prostate is getting bigger.

This from the NHS:

Research has shown around 3 in 4 men with a raised PSA level will not have cancer, and around 1 in 7 men with prostate cancer would have a normal PSA result.
 
kingandy2nd said:
ps - never been fingered on my tests, they have a blood test for the prostate. They do check your nuts though.
Click to expand...

The blood test is a level indicator, if it is found to be high - then they might investigate with MRI and/or the finger. The blood test alone, is not definitive, only an indicator.
 
johnny2007 said:
Over 1500 people die every day in uk, some suddenly, more so in recent times.
If the nhs had to scan everybody for everything we would need to double our taxes.
The number of people who are sick and have no symptoms is extremely small.
Instead, large is the number of people who ignore symptoms or do not take up the offer of routine screening.
One of the biggest killer in the world is cardiovascular disease.
Checking blood pressure regularly and blood tests every couple of years would prevent earlier deaths and cost very little.
So, imo yes to screening, no to expensive useless (or even detrimental) clinical examination (i.e. MRI, CT scan).
Click to expand...

Notch7 said:
not in this post:

“No symptoms = nothing to worry about.
Where do we get this fear of a killer disease without symptoms???”
Click to expand...
I know your 3 neurons have communication problems inside your pumpkin.
Try reading past one post, or even the first 3 lines.
You can do it!
 
Brigadier said:
Something I found interesting (re: testing, testing sensitivity, false negatives and false positives).......

Example.

The incidence of prostate cancer is 1:100.
A PSA test has a sensitivity (true positive rate) of 90%.
The PSA test has a false positive rate of 9%.

You've just tested positive for prostate cancer.
What is your percentage likelihood of actually having prostate cancer?
Rough figure will do.
Click to expand...
 
JohnD said:
Life is tough for the people who can't afford good health.
Click to expand...

I like to think I am easing the burden on the NHS.

I started out in the big wide world with qualifications (and a big student debt). I’d highly recommend it as a way to improve folk’s lot in life.

securespark said:
The PSA is no good on its own.

My PSA is fine, but there are suggestions that my prostate is getting bigger.

This from the NHS:

Research has shown around 3 in 4 men with a raised PSA level will not have cancer, and around 1 in 7 men with prostate cancer would have a normal PSA result.
Click to expand...

Harry Bloomfield said:
The blood test is a level indicator, if it is found to be high - then they might investigate with MRI and/or the finger. The blood test alone, is not definitive, only an indicator.
Click to expand...
Just saying my experience was that I don’t get that experience.
 
Notch7 said:
It would be great if that were true


Prostate cancer = no symptoms
high blood pressure = no symptoms
high blood sugar levels = no symptoms
glaucoma = no symptoms
Click to expand...
So many cancers that can metastasise before any systems are known.
 
Something I found interesting (re: testing, testing sensitivity, false negatives and false positives).......

Example.

The incidence of prostate cancer is 1:100.
A PSA test has a sensitivity (true positive rate) of 90%.
The PSA test has a false positive rate of 9%.

You've just tested positive for prostate cancer.
What is your percentage likelihood of actually having prostate cancer?
Rough figure will do.



No-one want to hazard a guess?
 
Vinty said:
Try Grinder.
Click to expand...

Brigadier said:
Something I found interesting (re: testing, testing sensitivity, false negatives and false positives).......

Example.

The incidence of prostate cancer is 1:100.
A PSA test has a sensitivity (true positive rate) of 90%.
The PSA test has a false positive rate of 9%.

You've just tested positive for prostate cancer.
What is your percentage likelihood of actually having prostate cancer?
Rough figure will do.



No-one want to hazard a guess?
Click to expand...
100 %
 
1000 men.

With an incidence of 1:100, this means it's likely that 10 men have prostate cancer.

Test those 1000 men, with the PSA test.

With a sensitivity of 90%, 9 of the 10 men who actually do have prostate cancer will test positive.

With a false positive rate of 9%, 89 of the 990 men who do not have prostate cancer will also test positive.

So, you end up with:

- 9 positive tests for men who really do have prostate cancer
- 89 positive tests for men who do not have prostate cancer

A total of 98 positive tests.
But only 10 positive cases.


So, the answer to my question is actually "about 9%“.
 
Brigadier said:
1000 men.

With an incidence of 1:100, this means it's likely that 10 men have prostate cancer.

Test those 1000 men, with the PSA test.

With a sensitivity of 90%, 9 of the 10 men who actually do have prostate cancer will test positive.

With a false positive rate of 9%, 89 of the 990 men who do not have prostate cancer will also test positive.

So, you end up with:

- 9 positive tests for men who really do have prostate cancer
- 89 positive tests for men who do not have prostate cancer

A total of 98 positive tests.
But only 10 positive cases.


So, the answer to my question is actually "about 9%“.
Click to expand...
I was close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top