NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.

ABC misses the whole point of the A1C diabetes testing story

Posted By

Tags

They said the A1C test was new, but then said it’s already widely available. Huh?

That’s how unhelpful the ABC News story was on the proposed broader use of the A1C diabetes test.

They never once stated that this is a proposed new application of an old test – proposed by an international committee of diabetes experts.

One print story we read had no problem summarizing the news succinctly when it led:

“A blood test physicians use regularly to check blood sugar levels in people with diabetes is now being recommended as a tool to diagnose the disease.”

Was that so difficult? Would that gobble up too much precious TV airtime?

Instead, much of the airtime was wasted on meaningless people-on-the-street interviews – a hackneyed technique that doesn’t employ much in the way of sound journalism. Asking people whether they knew if they had diabetes is not directly related to the news about the expanded use of the A1C test – UNLESS those people had been tested in conventional ways and were left uncertain.

But the story also:

• failed to compare the A1C with existing plasma glucose or glucose tolerance tests;
• failed to describe the sensitivity or specificity of the test;
• failed to describe the cost implications of this proposed broader use.

So, all in all, this story didn’t help viewer understanding very much. It just fed the “newer is better, more is better” mentality without scrutinizing – or even apparently understanding – what was before them.

You might also like

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.

Comments are closed.