A New York Times editorial, “False Promises on Ovarian Cancer,” captures the latest chapter in the history of the too-much, too-soon enthusiasm for screening tests that often takes place – enthusiasm that is later overcome by the reality of evidence. Excerpts:
“New evidence that women are more likely to be harmed than helped by screening tests for ovarian cancer is disturbing. The tests do nothing to prevent healthy women from dying from the usually fatal disease. Yet they often lead doctors to perform needless surgeries that cause serious complications in many patients.
…
Despite the expert advice against routine screening, a survey of 1,000 doctors published in February found that a third of them believed that screening was effective and many offered it to patients. Many patients request screening, believing that it can find the disease early enough to save lives. It is long past time for doctors and their patients to recognize that this assumption is wrong.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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.
Ken Leebow
September 12, 2012 at 9:48 amWhen it comes to screening, we’ve got a long way to go before change takes place. NBC-Atlanta has a major PSA campaign called: Real Men Wear Gowns (promoting PSA screening).
http://www.11alive.com/life/community/realmen/default.aspx
Ken Leebow
September 12, 2012 at 9:48 amWhen it comes to screening, we’ve got a long way to go before change takes place. NBC-Atlanta has a major PSA campaign called: Real Men Wear Gowns (promoting PSA screening).
http://www.11alive.com/life/community/realmen/default.aspx
Stuart Bennett
September 16, 2012 at 4:03 pmThe data for the study that was used as the basis for the recent conclusions was obtained about a decade ago. The PLCO study that was the primary information source for the recent USPSTF recommendations was completed in the early 2000’s. It has so many inconsistencies in follow up as well as questionable medical ethics re follow up and treatment to render it of questionable use. In addition, surgical procedures have advanced so in the current decade that the comparisons are worthless.
It is also noteworthy that the USPSTF recommendations seem to generally be released in the popular media-not refereed medical review and most physicians by survey reject the findings.
A new Standard of Care that not only honors but mandates the use of screening, even though not perfect, is required for these most deadly of cancers.
If the conclusions of a study don’t meet common sense, then ethical researchers are required to either investigate whether the study is flawed or the procedures accepted as constant within the study are flawed. In this case, I would argue that both factors influenced current conclusions.
Gary Schwitzer
September 18, 2012 at 7:13 amStuart,
Thanks for your note. You made your argument. In response, I would submit that screening should be an informed choice, not a mandate as you urge. Your line – “if the conclusions of a study don’t meet common sense” – demonstrates a classic gap between science and intuition, between what we believe/wish/hope and what we can prove.
You are also incorrect in your statement that “USPSTF recommendations seem to generally be released in the popular media-not refereed medical review.” Check the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Stuart Bennett
September 16, 2012 at 4:03 pmThe data for the study that was used as the basis for the recent conclusions was obtained about a decade ago. The PLCO study that was the primary information source for the recent USPSTF recommendations was completed in the early 2000’s. It has so many inconsistencies in follow up as well as questionable medical ethics re follow up and treatment to render it of questionable use. In addition, surgical procedures have advanced so in the current decade that the comparisons are worthless.
It is also noteworthy that the USPSTF recommendations seem to generally be released in the popular media-not refereed medical review and most physicians by survey reject the findings.
A new Standard of Care that not only honors but mandates the use of screening, even though not perfect, is required for these most deadly of cancers.
If the conclusions of a study don’t meet common sense, then ethical researchers are required to either investigate whether the study is flawed or the procedures accepted as constant within the study are flawed. In this case, I would argue that both factors influenced current conclusions.
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