This was classic morning show health news garbage.
"Three heart tests that all women should know about"? "All" suggests that even women without symptoms should be thinking about these tests. But the segment later says that the tests are only for women with symptoms, but then never gives a detailed description of these symptoms.
So viewers are left with another high-tech showcase: stress echocardiograms, screening ultrasounds, and CT scans looking for calcium in the coronary arteries – the menu for the morning news-viewing woman.
Does CBS and its physician-correspondent realize that the term "screening" (which they used in reference to ultrasounds) does not apply to those with symptoms?
So which women – precisely – should think about or pursue these tests? Those with symptoms – or those without symptoms?
On top of everything else, the segment included a glaring, unforgivable error. It said that the three tests involved no radiation – implying that they are harm-free. But a cardiac CT scan has an average radiation dose equivalent to 600 chest x-rays!!! In addition, according to a 2007 study in JAMA, there is an increased risk of breast cancer in women having the test due to the radiation dose. And this segment was all about women having these tests.
Who is responsible for this content?
Is this news? Is this public education? Or is it just another meaningless medical marvel morning show segment that fails to quantify benefits or talk about harms or acknowledge costs?
No discussion of costs. No discussion of the potential cost impact of telling all women that they "need to know about" these three tests. The costs of false positive tests in lower risk women is also not noted. Cost of diagnostic testing is a significant issue that is a major driver of healthcare costs.
There was no discussion of how many women who have these tests find things that need to be treated. No quantification of benefit.
The segment says the tests involve no radiation. This is a huge error. A cardiac CT scan has an average radiation dose equivalent to 600 chest x-rays!!! In addition, according to a 2007 study in JAMA, there is an increased risk of breast cancer in women having the test due to the radiation dose.
No evidence was given to support the use of any of these three technologies in women. More important to the theme of the story, it is unclear how these three tests were chosen as the gold standard out of the myriad of available tests. No evidence was provided concerning the sensitivity and specificity of the tests in women with lower risk of heart disease.
All women are told they need to know about these three tests. Later, though, the MD correspondent says it’s only for women with symptoms. Which symptoms?- the anchor appropriately asks. The question was never answered with any specific, meaningful descriptive detail.
So the impression is left with the audience that all women need to know about these tests – even if they have vague symptoms.
We call that disease-mongering.
No heart experts were cited, quoted, appeared or interviewed.
There was no discussion about the range of testing options for a woman with symptoms of heart disease (of course the symptoms were never described). No meaningful comparison of these three tests with other alternatives.
Women are not given any idea of how widely available are the three tests – or whether all three are available in some places, most places, any places?
There was no discussion of the novelty of the three tests, so this is N/A.
We are given no idea why this segment was put on the air now. No news. No sources. No idea.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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