Talk:Full-body CT scan

message: The article (before my upkeep) was clearly about the use of full-body scans in preventative screening. I therefore propose the title be changed to either:
* "Use of full-body scans for disease screening"
* "Full-body medical scan"
And the addition of the following redirects:
* "Full-body scan" -> either this article or an article on security  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.86.44 (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested rename

message: This needs appropriate citation from peer reviewed publications.  The references are not at all appropriate.  Also, the comparison of non-CT technologies like carotid dopplers, angiography, and nuclear lung scans to full body CT scans is not apt whatsoever.  -- Samir   धर्म 07:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Why do we need that paragraph?
*"At a cost of $600 to $3000 dollars full-body scans are expensive, and are rarely covered by insurance. Clinics offering full body scans have been accused of misleading scare tactics to convince customers to spend large sums of money for unnecessary and unhelpful procedure." NCurse  work 14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without a solid source (e.g. quackwatch) this shouldn't be there. But there have been high-profile critics of the "scan for safety" panic movement. JFW | T@lk 16:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That paragraph doesn't say, "clinics are using scare tactics", it says, "clinics have been accused of using scare tactics". To prove this statement I only have to reference a reasonable website that makes such an accusation. I've already referenced two. Vicarious 22:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is precedent that statements along the lines of "have been accused of..." (even with copious web refs) are insufficient: the article G. Patrick Maxwell had a similar statement removed by WP:OFFICE.  Jim Shapiro was deleted for similar reasons.  I think that unproven allegations remain unproven, and as such, shouldn't be mentioned even as "unproven" -- Samir   धर्म 09:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I'm not completely supportive of the NPOV tag. What the article says at present is actually quite neutral, and it doesn't seem Samir or NCurse are really disputing its neutrality. I do agree that better primary sources should be sought, especially for the scandirectory site but even for radiologyinfo. This has several reasons: (1) Websites are prone to change, journal articles - when cited - have staying power. (2) Secondary sources tend to include interpretation, extrapolation and speculation. (3) Websites are not necessarily neutral; the problem also exists with journal articles but they are somewhat more predictable. JFW | T@lk 16:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think neutrality is disputed because of the paragraph mentioned by me above. If we'd remove it (as it has no place in an article), we could remove NPOV tag too. NCurse  work 16:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that most of the complaints seem to be about sources rather than POV. If this article were tagged  I'd still disagree, but I'd at least agree with the validity of the argument. As for JFW's point, I absolutely agree that primary sources are preferable, but I don't think they're mandatory. This article already has more, and more credible sources than the majority of wikipedia's articles. Vicarious 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for NPOV tag 

message: This article should also include full body mri, which is just as well possible, although still less popular. --WS 22:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw very little mention of full body MRI scans which I found strange. Perhaps MRI scans are too expensive to be common. If you find any sites that address this issue please feel free to add the info. Also, some mention should probably be made of EBT which is used for this (infrequently). Vicarious 23:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MRI 

message: First, I wanted to apologize if I came off as harsh; that wasn't my intent.  I've spent a bit of time reading the relevant literature in this area that is somewhat outside of my area of expertise (save the GI screening).  I found two supplements to major radiology publications that were dedicated to full body CT scans (Eur Radiol 15 Suppl 4 from Nov 2005, and an earlier one AJR Am J Roentgenol 180 (2) from Feb 2003) that I used as primary sources.  I've removed or rewritten the comments that I thought were non-neutral, or were unsourced.  I've left one line on the other scans that links to the scandirectory web site, as I can't find much in the primary literature on operating characteristics for heart CT scans, bone CT scans, etc.  I've removed the CT image, with the promise that I will ask my patients who've had virtual colonoscopy for their permission to upload representative pics, as that would be an appropriate CT screening image.  The brain tumor CT image of metastasis was also done for screening, and may be an appropriate replacement.  I'm indifferent to the popular culture references, and have left them in.  And I've taken down the POV banner -- Samir   धर्म 09:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some edits 

message: "Cost is an additional disadvantage; at a cost of US$600 to $3000 full-body scans are expensive, and are rarely covered by insurance.[9][10] However, in December 2007, the IRS stated that full-body scans qualify as deductible medical expenses, without a doctor's referral. This will likely lead employer-sponsored, flexible-spending plans to make the cost of the scans eligible for reimbursement.[11]..." this is US-centric. --134.100.5.65 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US-centric