Reuters made a good effort to explain the latest cell phone & cancer study, pointing out the possible limitations in the methodology. Excerpt:
“The Interphone study was an epidemiological case-control study that began with cases — people with brain tumours — and controls — people with no cancer — and asked them to remember how much they had used mobile phones in previous years.
Experts say that case-control studies can be useful in establishing whether a disease is associated with a certain exposure or lifestyle, but they are also susceptible to a number of possible biases that mean results can be unreliable.
One, known as “selection bias” or “participation bias,” comes about because of the voluntary nature of taking part in a study.
Almost 13,000 people were covered in the Interphone study and one potential problem may be that some of those who took part because they have a brain tumour did so because they already believed the disease was caused by using a mobile phone.
This could skew their estimations of how much they used a cell phone and how often they held it on one side of their head where their tumour appeared rather than the other.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
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/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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.
JJ
May 18, 2010 at 8:32 amGary, great post. The reporting on this issue is fascinating. Here are two examples from oppostie ends of the spectrum.
University Of Ottawa Study Links Cellphone Use To Higher Risk Of Brain Cancer: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018726916#ixzz0oHrqPMTy
Mobile phones not proven to cause brain cancer: http://www.mobile-computing-news.co.uk/industry-news/4440/mobile-phones-not-proven-to-cause-brain-cancer.html
Elaine Schattner, M.D.
May 18, 2010 at 12:48 pmI agree the study is inconclusive. But even if the results were clear, the study wouldn’t adequately address the potential harms people may incur from cell phone use. The hypothesis that cell phone use causes brain cancer is too narrow.
Many people carry cell phones in their jeans and other clothing pockets. Future studies should consider other potential toxicities of these commonplace devices.
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