NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

U.S. Panel Questions Prostate Screening

Rating

5 Star

U.S. Panel Questions Prostate Screening

Our Review Summary

This story describes the newly released recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on the utility of routine PSA testing.  It highlighted the importance of the new recommendation, namely that the task force indicated that routine testing of men older than 75 resulted in little to no benefit.  The story attempted to provide a picture for the reader of reasons for the ambiguity about routine prostate cancer screening and the important trade-off between common side effects and treatment of a disease that often is not problematic. It included quotes from experts who had different opinions about how to consider the risks and benefits of routine testing for, and various treatment of, prostate cancer.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

There was no discussion of the costs associated with prostate cancer screening.  However, as the cessation of routine prostate cancer screening for men over the age of 75 was the new recommendation by the task force, cost is not really germane to the discussion.

It might have been helpful to include some mention of the potential costs to screening older men and/or cost saving with cessation of screening older men.  There are those that are going to interpret the recommendation against routine screening as a cost saving effort. 

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story outlined for readers that the benefits of routine screening for prostate cancer are uncertain.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

Without quantifying the frequency, the story mentioned the common side effects of treatment for prostate cancer.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

The story attempted to explain the conundrum of prostate cancer, prostate cancer treatment, and routine prostate cancer screening.  It included numbers indicating that the number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer is far in excess of the number who die of prostate cancer.  

 

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. It put the natural history of most prostate cancers into appropriate context.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The story included comments from a number of individuals with relevant expertise.  The story did not do an adequate job of indicating whether those quoted served on the recommendation task force other than for Ned Calonge, who was mentioned as chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The story was about the new recommendation regarding routine screening of men older than 75 years of age with PSA test;  the story presented arguments for and against the use of the test.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story mentioned that it was about routine screening of men for prostate cancer.  As the story lead with "The blood test that millions of men undergo each year", it accurately indicated that this test is readily available.

 

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story was reporting on the release of new guidelines from the US Preventive Services task force, and highlighted that these recommendations differ from the previous version in that they specify that the benefit of routine screening of men older than 75 years of age for prostate cancer is little to none while at the same time, the harms are moderate-to-substantial.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

Does not  rely exclusively on a press release as it includes numerous quotes from a variety of experts with differing view points.

Total Score: 9 of 9 Satisfactory

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.