Pap smears
Under the headline, “Doctors Too Pap-Happy,” HealthDay reports: “Most primary care physicians advise women to get “Pap” tests for cervical cancer screening more often than clinical guidelines recommend, new research reveals.”
PSA tests
Reuters Health explained: “The American College of Physicians (ACP) became the latest group to ask doctors to be clear about the limited benefits and “substantial harms” of prostate cancer screening before offering their male patients a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test.”
Oral cancer screening
Reuters Health also reported: “There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for oral cancer, a government-backed panel said today, due to a lack of data on possible benefits and harms tied to screening.”
Common theme – as Sir Muir Gray explained:
“All screening programmes do harm; some do good as well, and of these, some do more good than harm at reasonable cost.”
And we do harm when we don’t adequately communicate potential harms to those making screening decisions.
—————————–
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
FINALLY..... a commonsense analysis of yet more HYPE in the media about the next great hope for eliminating breast cancer. Thanks @mcjaklevic and @HealthNewsRevu. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1192417365843206145
Here we go again: another “simple blood test" for early detection of breast cancer. News reports shout “CANCER BREAKTHROUGH” & other hype for preliminary, very limited findings. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2019/11/theranos-redux-not-really-but-claim-of-a-simple-test-for-breast-cancer-warrants-scrutiny/
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