This story discusses first trimester screening for prenatal chromosomal abnormalities, namely Down syndrome. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) looked at sequential screening of women 10-13 weeks into their pregnancy, instead of the typical 16 week screening. Combining blood tests and ultrasound screening succeeded in finding 87% of Down fetuses (though a positive test is still only a prediction of increased risk that a baby will be born with Down syndrome). The journalist did not mention the false positive rate of the 1st trimester vs. 2nd trimester screenings in the NEJM study, nor the study design. However, a discussion of what constitutes a “positive” result of screening was a plus for this story. The story also was balanced in presenting the risks of screening and the risk of miscarriage due to subsequent diagnostic tests, such as chorionic villus sampling or CVS (sampling cells via a thin tube or needle inserted into the placenta) and amniocentesis. There was no discussion of the cost of these tests earlier in the
No information about the cost
of the screening or diagnostic tests, either alone or in combination. No information if both forms of testing in first
trimester are covered by insurance.
Not much quantitative data presented.
Mentions harms of miscarriage with the
CVS testing and amniocentesis. Briefly mentions psychological harm of screening if you do not want to go through with more
risky diagnostic tests–more anxiety during the pregnancy if you have a positive Down result in screening.
No mention of study design, although
discussion of design in this case (sequential treatment for all participants vs. randomization to control and treatment
groups) was not crucial to interpreting results of the study. No mention of false positive rate. (About 5% with first
trimester combined screening.)
Frames risk factors of more invasive diagnostic tests and the
risk of screening (in terms of anxiety if you choose not to have the further tests).
Potential conflict of interest is not discussed, but there are a number of local experts in
ob/gyn quoted, however no patients. Nobody cited affiliated with the New England Journal of Medicine study, upon which the
story is based.
Mentions alternatives of second trimester testing or no screening at all, but seems to promote the
screening. Gives estimate of miscarriage with diagnostic tests.
Story address the
greater demand for 1st trimester testing, but does not address availability in smaller hospitals, nor is there a discussion
that there is specialized training and a certification process for nunchal translucency (the ultrasound test) for both
sonographers and physicians.
Mentions that combination of
screening methods provide greater accuracy sooner in pregnancy. Neither is a “new’ test, however.
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