HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Guidelines Push Back Age for Cervical Cancer Tests
November 20, 2009
Story doesn’t explain the evidence behind the guidelines. Readers learn of the guideline controversy but get little information to help them evaluate their credibility, applicability or relevance.
Our Review Summary
This story on new cervical screening guidelines attempts--and largely succeeds--at putting the new recommendations in political and medical context.
But, despite its considerable length, it leaves big information gaps:
- What evidence are the new guidelines based on?
- How much does screening cost, and how much money is being spent on what the new guidelines say are unnecessary--and possibly harmful--screenings?
- What is the risk of deaths, cancers, and/or unnecessary treatment for women in various age groups?
The story is well-sourced and is certainly granted sufficient length--1,250 words.
But at the end readers learn essentially that there are controversial new guidelines--but get little information to help them evaluate their credibility, applicability or relevance.
On the other hand, they do learn that politicians are using the guidelines to argue about health care reform.
That doesn't serve readers who care about cervical cancer risks.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The availability of Pap testing is assumed.
The report does not mention costs. Price should be taken into account whenever population screening is an issue.
Given how much emphasis the story puts on the political ramifications for health care reform, the omission is particularly unfortunate.
The story does nothing to exaggerate the prevalence or severity of cervical cancer.
The story fails to describe the evidence upon which the new recommendation is based. It makes only a glancing reference to "new medical information."
The story mentions the harms of not catching cervical cancers early. It devotes some attention to the harms of over-treatment that follow unnecessary screening, particularly in low-risk younger women.
The story should have mentioned the likelihood of these risks.
The relative novelty of cervical cancer screening is not in question in this story.
The story does not quantify benefits of screening.
The story does not draw from any of the press releases associated with this story.
Sourcing is excellent. Sources include:
- A member of the guidelines committee
- Three physicians, one with the American Cancer Society
- Three political players
- Two patients
The story adequately compares the two guidelines.
But it failed to compare the options--and consequences to patients--of getting screened and not getting screened.
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.