This story, which reports on revelations calling into question previous positive findings about the use of spiral CT scans to identify lung cancer, is a good example of the press acting as watchdog over the medical research industry. While the New York Times did the original reporting to reveal the researchers’ conflict of interest, ABC’s immediate broadcast of the findings serves the public interest.
This report does several things quite well:
The only off-note here is that the report says "ABC has learned" that the researcher also had financial interests in the spiral CT scan technology via several patents. ABC News should have explained whether it "learned" these things through its own independent reporting, or by reading the news accounts of other journalists.
Because the segment reveals the lead researcher’s financial interest in the scanning technology–and because it raises suspicion about whether the widely used test is effective–the cost of a scan should have been reported.
The segment reports that the findings now called into question suggested that the use of spiral CT scans could reduce lung cancer risk by as much as 80 percent.
This helps viewers understand the magnitude of benefit the previous research showed–and why the revelations about this study’s funding are so important.
The segment does a good job describing the potential harms–unnecessary biopsies and surgeries–that even someone at high risk for lung cancer may face.
The segment states that the New York Times discovered the conflict of interest, but does not indicate what evidence was found.
The segment does not exaggerate the severity or frequency of the underlying disease, lung cancer, or of the side effects of the treatment’s high-dose radiation.
The segment is very well sourced. Sources incude:
The end of the segment plainly addresses questions viewers may have about whether to consider getting a spiral CT scan. The medical editor also indicates that research that is still going on may resolve questions about the efficacy of the treatment.
While the availablity of spiral CT scans is not in question here, the story accurately implies the tests are both widely used and currently being studied.
The novelty of the treatment is not in question in this story.
The story was based on reporting by the New York Times, not a press release. But the segment should have been clear about this from the outset. Nonetheless, the story used multiple independent sources.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Media coverage of a recent study is generating unwarranted hype about supplemental screening for cancer for women with dense breasts. https://lowninstitute.org/news/blog/media-misleads-on-mri-screening-for-breast-cancer/
Happy to see that my @HealthNewsRevu blog about progression-free survival confusion has been reposted by @kevinmd. https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2019/12/most-new-cancer-treatments-havent-been-proven-to-help-patients-live-longer-or-feel-better.html via @kevinmd
We are all worse off for not having @garyschwitzer's excellent, daily health care reporting, but his story today should sound the alarms and be a warning to anyone who gets health care information from local TV health news (read: much of America) (1/2) https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2019/11/why-hire-a-full-time-health-reporter-when-you-can-buy-news-off-the-shelf/#.Xeank0LWjyA.twitter
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