This story was about the elevated cancer risks associated with the use of hormone replacement therapy by women after menopause. But while highlighing an increased cancer risk, the story never explained that there was no difference in overall risk of dying from all causes for the different groups of women. So while the story quoted someone saying "There’s no reason for alarm," this important statistic would have provided some framework for why there was no reason for alarm.
So some of the framing provided in this article (and in the scientific paper) semantically makes it seem like women would have to be crazy to choose to take HRT (experiencing "danger" and suffering from "insufficient awareness of risk") when in fact if women have a need that may be improved the tradeoff in terms of overall risk is neutral – so that personal history and informed decision-making really should take the lead.
Another point about framing: Although the story mentioned in passing the benefit of hormone replacement therapy for relief of menopausal symptoms, it failed to expand on what these symptoms were and the extent to which they were lessened by the treatment. It failed to mentioned that there was a significant decrease in overall fracture risk.
There have been many critics of the ways in which the Women’s Health Initiative study findings were communicated in 2002. This story – at times – fell into that same pattern of failing to deliver the context women may need to help make decisions.
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.
Although the story mentioned in passing the benefit of hormone replacement therapy for relief of menopausal symptoms, it failed to expand on what these symptoms were and the extent to which they were lessened by the treatment. It failed to mentioned that there was a significant decrease in overall fracture risk.
The story was all about harms associated with the use of hormone replacement therapy. But it did not explain that all-cause mortality was the same whether women took HRT or not, and it did not explain that cancer risk for the entire period of follow-up was identical.
Although the story mentioned that it was based on a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, it really failed to provide information about the evidence in a way that was informative and useful to the reader. Rather, it invoked the Women’s Health Initiative study "mystique" repeatedly – without ever describing some of the criticisms of the framing of those original findings.
The story never explained an important finding: that whether or not women used hormone replacement therapy, all cause mortality was found not to differ. So some of the framing provided in this article (and in the scientific paper) semantically makes it seem like women would have to be crazy to choose to take HRT (experiencing "danger" and suffering from "insufficient awareness of risk") when in fact if women have a need that may be improved the tradeoff in terms of overall risk is neutral – so that personal history and informed decision-making really should take the lead.
The story included quotes from 4 clinicians.
The story did briefly explain at the very end that "there are other drugs to protect against osteoporosis and other treatments for cardiovascular disease – though not as many for symptoms of menopause." Not much, but an attempt was made.
It was possible to see from the story that hormone replacement therapy is still available.
The story accurately reported on the novelty (lack thereof) of this treatment.
Because the story quoted multiple sources, it does not appear to rely on a press release.
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