A new study in last week’s New England Journal of Medicine found that the HPV DNA test outperformed pap smears in a large trial of women in India. The results were dramatic – a one time HPV DNA test reduced more deaths and cases of advanced cervical cancer than the traditional pap smear over the 8 year study period. Although the number of deaths in the study were small, roughly 1 per 1,000 in the HPV DNA group and 2 per 1,000 in the control group, that the HPV DNA test can be done as a one-time test has significant advantages, particularly in resource-poor environments such as India.
Whether these new results will change practice in developed countries is still uncertain. The cost-effectiveness of the test depends in large part on the prevalence of HPV in the population. And whether the HPV DNA test means women will no longer need annual pap smears remains controversial. What is clear, however, is that HPV DNA tests will likely be increasingly used, with or without the traditional pap smear.
This story gave lip service to the study, but didn’t give many of the details we just provided in two short paragraphs. No quantification of benefits. No discussion of the possibly limited impact in developed countries.
The story doesn’t mention any harms of the DNA test. The story mentions that women over 30 who get the DNA test would not need to come in for several years before repeating the test. This recommendation is somewhat controversial in that it could potentially disrupt the annual gynecologic visit schedule, which many women rely on as their "regular" health check up. Furthermore, the way in which this information is described is quite confusing – clearly the intention is to advise an annual checkup with cervical cancer screening done only every three years – but this is not well described in the story
The story could have also been improved by describing the costs of the DNA test and it should have quoted at least one expert who was not related to the study or DNA test manufacturer who could have provided more perspective.
The story does not mention the cost of the DNA test.
The story does not quantify the benefits of DNA testing.
The story doesn’t mention any harms of the DNA test. The story mentions that women over 30 who get the DNA test would not need to come in for several years before repeating the test. This recommendation is somewhat controversial in that it could potentially disrupt the annual gynecologic visit schedule, which many women rely on as their "regular" check up. Furthermore, the way in which this information is described is quite confusing – clearly the intention is to advise an annual checkup with cervical cancer screening done only every three years – but this is not well described in the story
The story didn’t give any details of the current study. It did not mention that the study was conducted in India in a resource-poor setting, so there are challenges in applying the same results to the US healthcare system.
The story doesn’t exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of HPV or cervical cancer.
The story should have quoted at least one expert who was not related to the study or DNA test manufacturer who could have provided more perspective.
The story mentions Pap smears, with or without concurrent DNA testing as the alternative.
It is not at all clear from the story how widely available is the test.
Clearly the DNA test is not new but this is the largest trial to date.
There is no way to know if the story relies on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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