This was a well-done story about a new business strategy in medicine, direct to consumer diagnostic testing – in this case for skin cancer. It provided readers with a lot of information about approaches to skin cancer screening, including what they can do on their own, organizations that provide free screening, and how the medical professionals most closely associated with skin cancer screening view this new organization and its approach. While pointing out that screening is only as good as the person conducting the exam, it also highlights the fact that many people are not screened in accordance with current recommendations. However – there was no evidence presented for efficacy of the screening method use in this new facility or for traditional screens conducted by physicians. A particular flaw was the lack of discussion of harms associated with both false positives (increased surveillance and worry) and diagnosis of early cancers that would not progress, with a possible cascade of medical intervention and all that entails.
Overall, the story was informative and successful in not being merely a shill for the new enterprise.
The story included the costs of a Molesafe screening as well links to organizations offering no cost screening.
To be more complete, there are three pieces of information the story could have included: the cost for yearly follow-up at Molesafe, whether or not Molesafe screening would be covered by some, most, or no insurance companies, and the estimated costs of such screening by a dermatologist.
The story did not quantify the benefits that might be derived from increasing the number of people being screened for skin cancer. It did not include any discussion about the value of such screening in any of the settings mentioned. But it did provide some discussion around the information that fewer people are screened than recommendations would suggest and that this type of setting had the potential to increase the screening rate.
The president of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery expressed his concern that "Dermatologists consistently do better than non-dermatologists" which could be interpreted as a suggesting that MoleSafe screening could miss lesions. A false negative is one of the harms of screening. The story should have been more explicit on this.
The story could have explained that the other harm of screening is a false positive, which in this case would be where something is diagnosed as a potential cancer and the individual goes for unnecessary follow-up and/or treatment.
Although the clinician who is opening this clinic and stands to gain financially from its operation stated that the process "is proven to detect melanomas and save lives," the story did not contain data supporting this claim. It should be available as this sort of clinic has been in operation for several years in New Zealand and Australia under the name MoleMap. If there is no evidence about the efficacy of this particular screening system, this should have been mentioned.
The story did not engage in disease mongering. In fact, it alluded to the fact that not all cancers are dangerous. This is a concept that is not often mentioned.
The reporter working on this story did an excellent job of obtaining comments from people with vested interest in the disease but without connection to the clinic at the heart of the story. The comments provided a very interesting perspective on how medical professionals view competition.
The story mentioned screening by dermatologists and even included links to groups conducting free screening. In addition, a side bar included information that provided information a reader could use to do a first pass screening on their own.
The story explained that the first Molesafe screening center is in the process of being opened in New Jersey. It also offer links to organizations offering free screening.
The story was quite clear on this being a newly available clinical setting in the United States but one which has a longer history in New Zealand.
Because of the number of sources used, we assume that the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Like Michael Corleone of science reporting that @garyschwitzer is (he tries to get out, bullshit disguised as #science #journalism keeps pulling him back in!), he drops this on @nytimes idiocy 🙄 in reporting T1 diabetes "cure"
HT @HealthNewsRevu
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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.