HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Tulsa company hopes device can ease cancer screenings
June 16, 2009
This story on a new ultrasound imaging device stands out from other zero-star stories we've reviewed. This piece doesn't merely fail to be accurate, balanced and complete. It fails to even try.
Our Review Summary
This story on a new ultrasound imaging device stands out from other zero-star stories we've reviewed. This piece doesn't merely fail to be accurate, fair and balanced. It fails to even try.
- It draws on only one source, a company executive whose job it is to sell machines
- It doesn't present any data to justify the source's claims of efficacy and superiority
- It doesn't provide any context about similar devices and other diagnostic techniques
- By implying the device can detect cancers mammograms cannot, it could provoke unjustified fear
- It fails to distinguish between screening and diagnosis
Looking over the story, it's not clear the reporter even asked a question. It is not mean or hyperbolic to say that most press releases are more informative.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
While the article says the SOFIA ultrasound machine isn't available in Oklahoma [where the newspaper is based], it asserts that "there are clinics in the Dallas area that have the machines."
This information is useless. Readers aren't told how many machines there are in the Dallas area, which facilities have them or whether they are currently used for diagnosis.
Worse, the unchallenged generality of the statement suggests the reporter didn't even ask the source--who is too self-interested in any event to trust without verification anyway.
The story says the cost for ultrasound breast imaging with the SOFIA machine ranges from $250 to $300. This comes from a self-interested source and requires independent verification.
The cost should have been compared to the cost of a conventional mammogram or other enhanced breast imaging techniques.
The story says the cost "should be covered by most insurance providers"--an assertion that again, due to the self-interest of the source, needs independent verification.
By stating that the Sofia ultrasound device is "more effective" and intended to "battle the uncertainty inherent" in mammograms, the story implies women not screened with this device may have undetected breast cancer.
This is of course nonsense--or, to be as generous as possible, unproven.
No evidence whatsoever is provided to defend the company's assertion that the ultrasound technique is "more effective and overall more efficient" than mammograms.
The potential harms of any new screening device include false positives and false negatives. Costs that outweigh benefits compared to other techniques are also a risk.
The story fails to mention this.
The lede of the story implies that the use of ultrasound in breast imaging and diagnosis is novel. It is not.
If the SOFIA product is unique, it's not even because it gathers images from all around the breast. It's because it reassembles images in what may be a novel way.
The reporter does not seem to understand this.
The story makes no attempt to quantify the benefits of the device, or even to describe the claims in much detail.
There is no press release linked to this story, though the company may wish to use it as one.
The reporter talks to one source, a man whose job is to sell more of the machines in question.
The story fails to discuss in a meaningful way the options of mammograms, conventional ultrasound and other imaging techniques used to detect breast cancer.
Total Score: 0 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.