It’s not clear that ABC really knew what the news was here – referring to an old test as "new," yet admitting it’s "already widely available." So viewers were left wondering what was really new here.
One print story we read had no problem summarizing the news succinctly when it led:
"A blood test physicians use regularly to check blood sugar levels in people with diabetes is now being recommended as a tool to diagnose the disease."
Was that so difficult? Would that gobble up too much precious TV airtime?
The news here is a proposed new application of an old test – and the ABC story just didn’t seem to get that. So neither could viewers.
Instead, much of the airtime was wasted on meaningless people-on-the-street interviews – a hackneyed technique that doesn’t employ much in the way of sound journalism. Asking people whether they knew if they had diabetes is not directly related to the news about the expanded use of the A1C test – UNLESS those people had been tested in conventional ways and were left uncertain.
But the story was also weak on comparing the A1C with conventional testing.
So, all in all, this story didn’t help viewer understanding very much.
No mention of costs nor of the cost implications of broader use of the A1C test for diabetes diagnosis. Without a clear description of the false positive, false negative, and positive predictive value, it is hard to know if this test is likely to generate a lot of un-needed service use in addition to just the cost associated with the test.
No quantification of benefits of using the A1C test for diagnosis, and, in fact, the story really missed the whole point of the story. One newspaper story had no problem explaining it succintly in its lede:
"A blood test physicians use regularly to check blood sugar levels in people with diabetes is now being recommended as a tool to diagnose the disease."
Was that so difficult? Would that gobble up too much precious TV airtime?
No discussion of reliability of the A1C test. A potential harm of any testing is the sensitivity and specifity of the test.
No discussion of the evidence driving the new recommendation. The story could have referred viewers to the fact that the recommendations published online and will appear in the July issue of Diabetes Care (http://care.diabetesjournals.org).
Not many details given about diabetes, so this criterion is N/A.
Two physician experts interviewed.
Not a good discussion of the evidence for the A1C test in comparision with existing plasma glucose or glucose tolerance tests.
Story says the test is "already widely available" but confuses things badly by referring to it as "a new test." It isn’t new. It never explained what it is already widely available for, and what the new use would be as a screening test.
Badly flawed in this regard as the story twice refers to the test as new and it’s not at all new. The news here is a proposed new application of an old test – and the story just didn’t seem to get that. So neither could viewers.
Two sources interviewed, so it doesn’t appear to have relied on a news release. But the story should have specified what role if any these 2 people had in creating this new recommendation.
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