A journalist wrote to me last week urging us to review stories about a study making claims about a new colon cancer DNA screening test. The journalist called the news “PR-driven hooey.”
We looked closely at four stories on the study. We found them all lacking for a variety of reasons.
Links to the full reviews:
WebMD
Among the problems we found among the four stories:
failure to include any independent perspective and using only input from conflicted individuals (in fact one story included the comments of a conflicted researcher who admitted “I haven’t looked under the hood” at the new findings!);
failure to establish how very preliminary were these findings and that the kind of study that was done tends to overestimate success;
failure to report that the DNA test in question isn’t the only new test in development;
cheerleading language from two stories referring to the search for “the Holy Grail” – one of them saying it “appears to be getting close”;
emphasizing potential benefits and minimizing of potential harms – a common journalistic pitfall in reporting on screening tests;
failure to give any meaningful data-backed comparison of the new test with existing colon cancer screening tests including other blood stool tests;
inflated estimates of how many people don’t get colon cancer screening now – with one story saying only 40% do and another saying only 20% do. But the fact is that the CDC BRFSS survey estimates that about 60% of US adults are up to date with screening, most with colonoscopy. Why would journalists use such inflated estimates, except that they got their estimates from conflicted researchers who stand to gain in some way from promotion of these findings and this new test?
Over and over again we point out journalists’ failure to apply healthy skepticism to screening tests.
They seem hell-bent on promoting the search for weapons of mass destruction inside all of us.
More balance, more evaluation of evidence, more healthy skepticism is needed.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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.
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