This article reports on a significant study that quanitifies the link between taking oral contraceptives and a reduced risk of ovarian cancer.
The news report has several key strengths:
The article also does a good job of putting the findings in a cultural context, indicating how many lives may have been saved, and how these effects are likely to spread to the developing world as more women there use oral contraceptives.
Oral contraceptives are inexpensive and often available discounted or free at health clinics. The article does not compare various methods of birth control (or preventing ovarian cancer) so cost is not an issue in this report.
The article does an excellent job explaining the benefits various ways:
The article briefly mentions the potential side effects of birth control pills, including the slightly elevated risk of breast cancer and cervical cancer, plus blood clots and high blood pressure. Given the dramatic findings about the reduced risk of ovarian cancer, this is useful information.
The article is based on an ambitious meta-analysis, published in a top-tier journal, of many studies conducted over several decades. Its methodology is described in considerable detail.
The article does not exaggerate the seriousness or frequency of ovarian cancer.
The article draws on the study itself, the editorial published along with it, the lead author and two additional medical sources with knowledge in the field.
The article does an excellent job of mentioning other actions that can reduce ovarian cancer risk (having children, tying fallopian tubes) to explain why an oral medication that reduces risk is so valuable.
It also makes clear that no experts are suggesting women take birth control pills purely for cancer reduction–that the risk reduction, as the study’s lead author puts it high in the story, is "a nice bonus."
Oral contraceptives are widely used, and their availability is not an issue in this piece.
The novelty of birth control pills or their protective benefits are not at issue in this report.
There is no evidence the article draws on a press release.
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