There is mounting evidence that removing the ovaries early, prior to menopause, increases a woman’s risk of heart disease, fracture, and now, potentially, neurologic deficits. For these women, using estrogen replacement therapy may be beneficial to block these effects as well as treating symptoms. This story reports on the results of a large cohort study showing that women who had their ovaries removed prior to menopause had an increased risk of developing Parkinson’s Disease.
This short piece adequately represents the novelty and availability of oophorectomy, sufficiently describes the harms of the procedure and does not engage in disease mongering. However, the story fails to describe the strength of the available evidence, does not quote multiple independent sources and does not describe any alternatives to the surgery.
Most importantly, however, the story does not adequately quantify the harms of oophorectomy. Specifically, the story provides quantification in relative terms only by stating that "surgical removal of the ovaries before menopause raises by half a woman’s risk of neurological problems." What that statement does not show is how rare those neurological problems are. By stating the increased risk in purely relative terms, the story appears to inflate the actual risk. See our primer on absolute versus relative risks.
Because the story discusses the potential harms of oophorectomy, the cost criterion is not necessarily applicable in this case.
The story does not adequately quantify the harms of oophorectomy. Specifically, the story provides quantification in relative terms only by stating that "surgical removal of the ovaries before menopause raises by half a woman’s risk of neurological problems." What that statement does not show is how rare those neurological problems are. By stating the increased risk in purely relative terms, the story appears to inflate the actual risk. See our primer on absolute versus relative risks.
The story adequately describes the potential harms of oophorectomy, including heart disease, hip fractures and now, potentially, neurological deficits.
The story does not comment at all on the strength of the available evidence.
The story does not appear to engage in diseae mongering.
The story only quotes one expert who is the lead author on the study.
The story does not discuss alternatives to oophorectomy.
Clearly, oophorectomy, surgical removal of the ovaries, is available.
Clearly oophorectomy is not a new idea.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.
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