This story reports on an article published in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association. The article presents follow-up data from the landmark Women’s Health Initiaive on the risks and benefits of hormone therapy. The new data shows that at three years after stopping hormone therapy, there was no increased risk of heart disease in the hormone therapy group, however the increase in breast cancer risk did persist at three years.
The story does not provide adequate details about alternatives to hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms or about lower-hormone options that could potentially confer less risk.
The story does not quantify the risks of hormone therapy, in absolute terms or otherwise. This is particularly important for this subject because the risks involved are realtively small. For example, in the study, the risk of breast cancer was less than one half of one percent per year in the hormone therapy group.
Furthermore, other than to describe the study as "sweeping", the story does not adequately describe the strength of the new evidence. Most importantly, the story does not explain that these findings do not necessarily apply to younger women who take hormone therapy for shorter periods of time.
Overall, in focusing solely on the risks of hormone therapy, this story implies that it is not a reasonable choice for women. In reality, when taken by women who are actively experiencing symptoms for short periods of time, hormone therapy is safe and effective.
There was no discussion of the costs involved with hormone replacement therapy although, with a story about risks of HRT, it is somewhat understandable that a discussion of costs was not vital.
The story does not quantify the risks of hormone therapy, in absolute terms or otherwise. This is particularly important for this subject because the risks involved are relatively small. For example, in the study, the risk of breast cancer was less than one half of one percent per year in the hormone therapy group.
The story mentions blood clots, breast cancer, and heart attack as risks of hormone therapy.
Other than to describe the study as "sweeping" the story does not adequately describe the strength of the new evidence. Most importantly, the story does not explain that these findings do not necessarily apply to younger women who take hormone therapy for shorter periods of time.
The story does not engage in disease mongering.
The story quotes more than one expert.
The story briefly mentions that "many women taking HRT are getting a treatment which is considered safer, often at half the dose and only for a couple of years" but that gives the viewer little information about what that option is or how much safer it may be.
Clearly hormone therapy is available.
Clearly hormone therapy is not a new idea.
Because the story quotes multiple experts, the viewer can assume the story did not rely 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