I’ve heard both views from experts. If you look at the methodology used to collect data, and consider how different health system would what was available for review, it’s easy to question the validity of these studies.
“To model IBD mortality, we used the causes of death database, which includes data from vital registration and verbal autopsy data.”
“To estimate the non-fatal burden of IBD, we used two separate databases, one for Crohn's disease and another for ulcerative colitis. Both included data from literature, hospital discharges, and claims data (the latter available only from the USA in 2000, 2010, and 2012; further information on IBD data is provided in the appendix, p 21). ”
Do you have links to papers that argue for your position, or are you just saying you personally talked to a researcher who held it? The paper you link reports a 60 fold difference in prevalence of a deadly illness, which is not the sort of thing that can be easily obscured by the measurement issues you bring up.
Researcher, I don’t know if they published anything on the topic.
As to the 60 fold difference, I’m not sure if you realize just how vast the difference in healthcare systems are worldwide. Chad for example has 1/60th the doctors per person as the US, how many colonoscopies do you expect they preform per year?
Ex: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1...
“To model IBD mortality, we used the causes of death database, which includes data from vital registration and verbal autopsy data.”
“To estimate the non-fatal burden of IBD, we used two separate databases, one for Crohn's disease and another for ulcerative colitis. Both included data from literature, hospital discharges, and claims data (the latter available only from the USA in 2000, 2010, and 2012; further information on IBD data is provided in the appendix, p 21). ”