HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Diabetes Test: Simple Diagnosis
June 05, 2009
ABC missed the whole point of the news - calling an old test "new" but that it's "already widely available." It never explained what it's used for now and what the change would be. Weak. Unhelpful.
Our Review Summary
It's not clear that ABC really knew what the news was here - referring to an old test as "new," yet admitting it's "already widely available." So viewers were left wondering what was really new here.
One print story we read had no problem summarizing the news succinctly when it led:
"A blood test physicians use regularly to check blood sugar levels in people with diabetes is now being recommended as a tool to diagnose the disease."
Was that so difficult? Would that gobble up too much precious TV airtime?
The news here is a proposed new application of an old test - and the ABC story just didn't seem to get that. So neither could viewers.
Instead, much of the airtime was wasted on meaningless people-on-the-street interviews - a hackneyed technique that doesn't employ much in the way of sound journalism. Asking people whether they knew if they had diabetes is not directly related to the news about the expanded use of the A1C test - UNLESS those people had been tested in conventional ways and were left uncertain.
But the story was also weak on comparing the A1C with conventional testing.
So, all in all, this story didn't help viewer understanding very much.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
Story says the test is "already widely available" but confuses things badly by referring to it as "a new test." It isn't new. It never explained what it is already widely available for, and what the new use would be as a screening test.
No mention of costs nor of the cost implications of broader use of the A1C test for diabetes diagnosis. Without a clear description of the false positive, false negative, and positive predictive value, it is hard to know if this test is likely to generate a lot of un-needed service use in addition to just the cost associated with the test.
Not many details given about diabetes, so this criterion is N/A.
No discussion of the evidence driving the new recommendation. The story could have referred viewers to the fact that the recommendations published online and will appear in the July issue of Diabetes Care (http://care.diabetesjournals.org).
No discussion of reliability of the A1C test. A potential harm of any testing is the sensitivity and specifity of the test.
Badly flawed in this regard as the story twice refers to the test as new and it's not at all new. The news here is a proposed new application of an old test - and the story just didn't seem to get that. So neither could viewers.
No quantification of benefits of using the A1C test for diagnosis, and, in fact, the story really missed the whole point of the story. One newspaper story had no problem explaining it succintly in its lede:
"A blood test physicians use regularly to check blood sugar levels in people with diabetes is now being recommended as a tool to diagnose the disease."
Was that so difficult? Would that gobble up too much precious TV airtime?
Two sources interviewed, so it doesn't appear to have relied on a news release. But the story should have specified what role if any these 2 people had in creating this new recommendation.
Two physician experts interviewed.
Not a good discussion of the evidence for the A1C test in comparision with existing plasma glucose or glucose tolerance tests.
Total Score: 3 of 9 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.