HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Cervical cancer screening can wait till 21, group says
November 20, 2009
This story doesn’t discuss what readers reasonably want to know: what the guidelines are based on, how they might apply to them, and what the risks of getting the screening--or not getting it--are.
Our Review Summary
This story on revised guidelines for cervical cancer screening puts them in medical and political context. It does an adequate job of describing the new guidelines themselves. It is well sourced.
But the story fails the reader in two important ways:
- While it raises the question of whether the guidelines might be motivated by a desire to contain health care costs, it fails to say how much the test costs--or whether the new guidelines would save or cost money.
- It does not give details of the evidence that the new guidelines are based on.
But it falls short in broader terms. When controversial new guidelines are proposed, a reader reasonably wants to know what the guidelines are based on, how they might apply to them, and what the risks of getting the screening--or not getting it--are. This story doesn't discuss those issues.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The availability of Pap testing is assumed.
The story quotes two sources who dispute the notion that the guidelines are motivated by a desire to save money.
Unfortunately, it never says how much money the test costs--or whether applying the new guidelines would cost or save money.
The story does nothing to exaggerate the prevalence or severity of cervical cancer.
In the last paragraph, the story briefly describes the epidemiological evidence upon which the guidelines are based.
But it's too little too late. The reader doesn't know what data the panel used to change the testing guidelines.
The story describes in paragraph two the potential harms of over-screening--that the testing led to stress, anxiety and some unnecessary treatments.
This point is emphasized by a quote in the following paragraph.
The novelty of cervical cancer screening is not in question in this story.
The story fails to quantify the benefits or risks of screening.
The story does not draw from any of the press releases associated with the guidelines' release.
Sourcing is excellent. Sources include:
- Two representatives of ACOG, the medical group responsible for the guideline revisions
- Two representatives of advocacy groups
- One disease survivor
- One American Cancer Society screening director
The story describes the new guidelines in layman's terms, and briefly describes the old ones. It makes it difficult for the reader to find and digest this information, however.
It should have indicated the risks of not getting screened at all.
Total Score: 4 of 8 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.