Consumer Reports rates heart disease screening tests in a new online offering.
The introductory message is:
“When it comes to screening tests for heart disease, more is not always better. Some people get tests they don’t need while failing to get those they do. To help you choose the tests that are best for you, based on your age, gender, and risk level, here are our Ratings of heart screening tests.”
So, for example, for men ages 45-54, on the question of “Do benefits outweigh risks?”:
2 are rated “Very likely”
1 is rated “Likely”
2 are rated “Uncertain”
4 are rated “Unlikely”
4 are rated “Very Unlikely”
The site also includes a heart attack and stroke risk calculator.
A Consumer Reports blog piece explains a poll that shows – not surprisingly – that many people are getting unnecessary heart screening tests.
This is why we criticize stories like the one in Prevention magazine that promoted several heart disease screening tests without a balanced review of the evidence. (Note: Our criticism of that piece was just highlighted in this week’s edition of the Health Wonk Review.)
This morning, Duff Wilson of the New York Times has a blog entry on the CR report as well.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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