Our Review Summary
First, this is another example of a local paper (Cincinnati Enquirer) taking a machete to an original AP story. AP’s version ran 939 words – hardly too much for a story of such widespread women’s health interest. The Enquirer slashed it to 369 words, removing much of the context.
The biggest flaw with this article is its headline and lede, which emphasize the conclusion that taking hormones for menopause doubles risk of breast cancer. No data is provided to justify this claim, which is significant in the context of previous WHI data.
It is premature to say that this would "end any doubt that the risks outweigh the benefits for most women." Debate continues about the full spectrum of harms/benefits.
Most women need better information and the opportunity to make their own decisions based on a 360 degree view of the issues. The hormone treatment discussion has been driven by fear for a long time, not the big picture, and this piece undermines the possibility of "discussing" the issues rather than pushing a position.
The study author is quoted saying the findings "change the balance" on whether to start hormone treatment at all, but it’s hard to know what she means by this.
The story could have been wrapped around the fresher finding: that breast cancer risk builds over time as the pills are taken and declines to nearly pre-treatment levels within two years of stopping. The story mentions this in paragraph two and includes a quote about it.
Had it been the central point the story would have provided a more valuable takeaway.
Criteria
Not Applicable
The story does not report the cost of the drugs.
While price is not essential in a story like this, as a rule costs should be reported.
Not Satisfactory
The story opens by stating that taking hormones "doubles the risk of breast cancer." The source of this statement is not provided, nor is even a mention of where to find the source. In any event, if the statement is correct it is unnecessarily provocative.
The reporter recovers in the last paragraph, stating that "most women will not get breast cancer by taking the pills in the short term," adding that a couple of years of hormone use translates into "a few extra cases of cancer a year" per 1,000 women. But again, it’s not clear what data that assessment is based on.
In any case, the information at the bottom should have appeared much higher up.
Satisfactory
The story focuses on the harms of hormone pills.
Not Satisfactory
The news report is based on a presentation at a medical meeting.
While the underlying data from the Women’s Health Initiative have been widely published and analyzed, the reporter should have indicated that these particular findings have not been peer-reviewed or published.
For this reason the story fails to achieve a "satisfactory" rating under this criterion.
Also, it is premature to say that this would "end any doubt that the risks outweigh the benefits for most women." Debate continues about the full spectrum of harms/benefits.
Satisfactory
The report does not exaggerate the risks or consequences of taking the pills. [Though see "Quantification of Benefits of Treatment," below]
Not Satisfactory
In the original AP version (939 words long), the reporter quoted 5 expert sources. In the vastly cut-down Cincinnati version (369 words), only two sources appeared.
It does not appear that anyone independent of the study in question was interviewed.
Not Satisfactory
The story reports that women who take hormones for severe menopausal symptoms should do so at the lowest dose for the shortest time possible.
It should have briefly mentioned that other interventions are available to treat the conditions for which the hormones were widely prescribed, including heart disease and osteoporosis.
Satisfactory
The story makes clear that estrogen and progestin pills remain available, but are to be prescribed with awareness of risk/harm tradeoffs.
Not Applicable
The novelty of the treatment is not in question.
Not Applicable
There does not appear to be a press release linked to this story.
Total Score: 3 of 7 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.
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