I could write about different screening test controversies every day and not get caught up (but, indeed, may have a screening-post-of-the-day every day this week).
Alan Cassels, a drug policy researcher and author at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, and publisher of the Media Doctor Canada website (sibling to our HealthNewsReview.org site), has published a column in the November issue of Common Ground magazine under the headline, “Screening for Alzheimer’s: What good can it do?“
His conclusion:
“…the drive to ‘screen’ people for Alzheimer’s is not being seriously questioned in the medical community because most people believe strongly in the “test early, test often” paradigm. That paradigm is not working out with mammography and prostate cancer screening and the question we should be asking is “Why should we expect anything different with Alzheimer’s?”
It’s a thoughtful analysis of the “test early, test often” message that dominates many screening messages. I encourage you to read the full column.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (6)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Michael Kirsch, M.D.
November 2, 2010 at 8:44 amThere is a fallacy, of course, in many of the ‘test early’ strategies. Discovering a condition early may not change the natural history of the disease. For example, we can now discover lung cancer sooner than we could 20 years ago. But, are these folks really living longer? The term for this is lead time bias and this can confuse the public and those who report on health issues.
Ivan Oransky
November 2, 2010 at 3:48 pmGood to keep in mind. Also, from one of my former students:
Totaled Recall: Is an Alzheimer’s Memory Screening Test Worth It?
http://bit.ly/9LGssT
Ivan Oransky, MD
Executive Editor, Reuters Health
Adjunct Assistant Professor, New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program
Treasurer, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
Blogger, Embargo Watch http://embargowatch.wordpress.com (a blog independent of Reuters that does not necessarily reflect its views)
Blogger, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com (ditto)
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky
Bix
November 6, 2010 at 3:55 pmI will have to read Mr. Cassels article…
In the debate on screening, I often see reference to increased mortality, living longer. I don’t see as often reference to quality-of-life. Sometimes interventions reduce quality of life without extending life appreciably. This is a thorny topic because quality-of-life is subjective. I’d still like to see it wrestled.
(Maybe you’ve written about this elsewhere. I just found your site. I’m enjoying it.)
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