We often write about incomplete, imbalanced stories we see about screening tests.
My local paper, the Star Tribune, published a doozie this weekend.
The online story headline was: Baby boomers embracing colonoscopies
In print, it was: Look At The Upside
The subhead was the same in either format: “From highway billboards to celebrities, everyone is talking about colonoscopies.”
The story discusses Minnesota Department of Health billboards that have received quite a bit of attention elsewhere – some of which focus only on colonoscopies.
And the story focuses primarily on colonoscopies.
There is no mention of flexible sigmoidoscopy.
There is no mention of traditional blood stool test kits.
Both of these are recommended by The US Preventive Services Task Force as screening tests for colorectal cancer along with colonoscopy in adults, beginning at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years.
Yet the story goes out of its way to discuss a highly experimental test by a Wisconsin company. It didn’t mention that the company released results this week that many analysts found disappointing. And it found time to mention virtual colonoscopies. The US Preventive Services Task Force states about both of these tests: “the evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography and fecal DNA testing as screening modalities for colorectal cancer.”
To get a sense of how imbalanced this story was, you should read Dr. Michael Kirsch’s piece, “Is Colonoscopy the Best Colon Cancer Screening Test?” – and he does colonoscopies. Or read some of what we’ve posted in the past about the writings of Dr. James Allison, Clinical Professor of Medicine Emeritus, University of California San Francisco:
There’s an important shared decision-making issue that the Star Tribune story completely ignored. There’s a statewide Minnesota Shared Decision Making Collaborative that I’m part of that could educate the newspaper on these screening issues.
That is, if the newspaper’s goal is not simply to be cute about edgy billboards.
———————–
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Progression-free survival: medical jargon that fuels public confusion about cancer treatment & journalism often fails to clarify. @mcjaklevic w/help from @VincentRK @adamcifu @Deadline2020 @DrAttai https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2019/10/how-one-bit-of-medical-jargon-fuels-public-confusion-about-cancer-treatments/
The @nytimeswell effort is shown to be unwell once again.
There's pervasive media bias toward hyping treatment benefits while neglecting negative results & harms.
Big part of this is reliance on experts with financial &/or intellectual conflicts of interest.
Att'n journalists: Use this list 100 independent experts to correct imbalance https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1177189641218330625
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