An important study was published this week showing some of the limitations of colonoscopy.
Journalists’ reactions to the story were – predictably – all over the map.
The New York Times reported under the headline, “Colonoscopies miss many cancers, study finds.” Excerpt:
“Instead of preventing 90 percent of cancers, as some doctors have told patients, colonoscopies might actually prevent more like 60 percent to 70 percent.
“This is a really dramatic result,” said Dr. David F. Ransohoff, a gasteroenterologist at the University of North Carolina. “It makes you step back and worry, ‘What do we really know?’ ”
Dr. Ransohoff and other screening experts say patients should continue to have the test, because it is still highly effective. But they also recommend that patients seek the best colonoscopists by, for example, asking pointed questions about how many polyps they find and remove. They also say patients should be scrupulous in the unpleasant bowel cleansing that precedes the test, and promptly report symptoms like bleeding even if they occur soon after a colonoscopy.
(Addendum: Ransohoff’s editorial appears here.)
But ABC News didn’t care for the Times story, posting this online: “Our medical experts were not convinced that there was the need for the urgent sense of the story providing us with scary news about a test that is pretty darn effective.” The ABC posting was under the headline, “The Case for Keeping Colonoscopy.”
Who ever said anything about not keeping colonoscopy? Seems like a false dichotomy if I’ve ever seen one.
And CBS News, predictably, with colonoscopy-advocate Katie Couric at the helm, again crossed the line into non-journalistic crusading, with Couric ending a segment on the study preaching, “And don’t use this study as an excuse not to get screened.”
Huh? Is that journalism?
Healthy skepticism is a missing element in much health news coverage. It is very difficult for some journalists to question the effectiveness of screening tests. And they do a disservice to their audience by touting opinions, not evidence. The classic clash between intuition and science.
Addendum: The journal also posted this video.
——–
Tweet
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Roger Sergel
December 22, 2008 at 10:49 amGoodness Gary, did you really believe that I was auggesting that the study indicated we should get rid of colonoscopy?
While HealthNewsReviews has done a real service by establishing some criteria for objective medical reporting, it is clear that the site has begun to develop a bias of its own.
On several occasions that panel of experts and you have shown a clear preference for the positions of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
HNR has an obvious scepticism about the value of screening, which has also been reflected by the NY Times in its coverage of mammography.
So HSR was almost predictable in coming to the defense of the NY Times story on the Canandian study of colonoscopy screening.
And we applied exactly what HNR has called for — scepticism. What we found, in responses from numerous researchers was that the study had a lot of limitations. What we also found was that the tone of the NYT story, was not consistant with how numerous doctors, from numbers of specialties, viewed the benefits of colonoscopy. And the editorial went further than the study.
Even the Times editorial appeared to back away from the conclusions of the study.
The real test of your objectivity is not your ability to detect the techniques of over statement in stories where the data is clear. The real test is to detect it in stories which reflect your position on the data, but still use quotes and copy that create a sense of surprise and excitement when there is none there.
Ask yourself:If that quote from Ransohoff had been used to go beyond the study data, for a conclusion you did not agree with, wouldn’t you have chided the reporter for hyping the story?
Scepticism about the benefits of screening is worthwhile. But your role is to keep the reporting consistent with the data. And on this one, you appeared to forget what your role is.
Roger Sergel
ABC News
The Publisher
December 22, 2008 at 11:05 amRoger,
Thanks for the note. What I was suggesting is that your headline that says “The case for keeping colonoscopy” seems to suggest that someone was calling for an abandonment of the practice – which no one seemed to be doing in this case.
There is no bias on HealthNewsReview.org. We don’t side with the NY Times nor against ABC News. We side with the evidence.
And if the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is not a body worth citing, then you and ABC should be reporting about why that is so. I’d like to see that story.
The Publisher
sandi
January 16, 2009 at 3:08 pmI don’t totally disagree with some media trying to downplay this story. We all know that sensational reporting of a study like this could easily lead to misunderstanding and as a consequence, reduction in screening colonoscopies. It’s very difficult to convey 1) proven benefits of screening while simultaneously conveying 2) screening isn’t as effective at finding cancer as we thought.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like