HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Report: 20-somethings can go 2 years between Paps
November 20, 2009
This story did some things that longer stories didn’t. But it didn’t include viewpoints from any independent sources. So it distilled the new guidelines on the readers' behalf. But not much more.
Our Review Summary
Despite its brevity, this story about revised guidelines for cervical cancer screening does a few things well:
- It compares the new and old recommendations clearly.
- It puts the guidelines in the context of the much-debated cervical cancer vaccine. Most similar stories, including longer ones, failed to do this.
- It alludes to the study findings upon which the new recommendations are based.
Having said that, the story fails to include viewpoints from any independent experts. It also fails to discuss costs.
Essentially, the story distilled the revised guidelines on the readers' behalf. This is necessary for such a story. But it is not sufficient.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The availability of Pap smear tests is not in question in this story.
The story fails to indicate how much a Pap test costs, or whether the new guidelines would cost or save money.
The story does nothing to exaggerate the prevalence or severity of cervical cancer.
The story does not describe the evidence upon which the guideline revisions are based. Its says only that ACOG "cited studies."
The story reports that many cervical abnormalities discovered by screening "usually go away on their own, and unnecessary treatment increases girls' risk of premature labor years later."
No claim is made for the novelty of Pap tests.
The story reports that half of women diagnosed with cervical cancer have never had a Pap test, and another 10 percent hadn't had one in five years. So it at least indirectly addressed benefit.
The story does not draw from any of the press releases linked to these guidelines.
The story essentially cites no sources other than the guidelines themselves.
An expert voice or two would have been useful to help people understand the meaning of the guidelines.
The story clearly compares the revised screening guidelines with the most recent ones. It also cites the link between women not being screened and getting cervical cancer.
Total Score: 5 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.