Although this was a well written, interesting piece about a professional organization’s effort at promoting early screening for autism, any story about screening ought to include information about the courses of action that might be taken based on the results of the testing. With any testing, it is important for people to understand the impact of test results that incorrectly identify individuals as either having or not having the condition in question. The story did not make clear what the strength of the evidence is for these new screening recommendations. And there was no discussion about whether the additional of a developmental assessment would increase the cost of traditional checkups. This could be a big issue, since "recommended treatment should include at least 25 hours a week of intensive behavior-based therapy." How much will that cost?
There was no discussion about whether the additional of a developmental assessment would increase the cost of traditional checkups. This could be a big issue, since "recommended treatment should include at least 25 hours a week of intensive behavior-based therapy." How much will that cost?
Although stressing that early intervention reduced the severity of autism, the story did not provide any quantification of this benefit beyond the hope that it might help children lead more normal lives.
One of the doctors quoted in the story mentioned that he now has parents that are concerned about autism whereas 10 years ago they did not know what it was. However the story did not follow this thread in terms of possible harms of treatment from labeling children as autistic who are later found not to be affected.
Failure to provide evidence of benefit to be obtained from early screening was the biggest omission with this piece. This story only reports the recommendation w/o any presentation on the evidence to support the recommendation, e.g. accuracy of screening exams, trials of screening, evidence for resulting treatments.
The story did provide the prevalence of autism and in describing the disorder, explained that it covered a range from mild to more severe. It would have been better if, in addition to providing an estimate for the prevalence of autistm,it provided a reference for interpreting how this compares in terms of frequency of occurence with some other psychological disorders.
Two clinicians were quoted in this story in addition to the two clincians who are co-authors of the American Academy of Pediatrics reports on autism screening.
The alternatives are – don’t screen, screen at a different frequency or in different age groups. Although not very explicit about this, the story was satisfactory.
This is a story about a recommendation that pediatricians screen children for autism at 18 and 24 months of age as part of their regular visit. While mentioning that some pediatricians go beyond this standard and may schedule specific time to check for developmental problems, the story provided the balance that an additional exam component may be difficult to fit into the regular wellness checkup schedule.
The story was clear that it was discussing increasing the use of autism screening in the toddler population.
Does not appear to rely exclusively on a press release, as several independent sources were interviewed.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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.
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