This piece presents the rationale behind a possible recommendation from the CDC for all U.S. boys to be circumcised. This was prompted by trials in Africa that found circumcised men had a much lower risk of contracting HIV from their female partners compare to uncircumcised men. As the story points out, this same impact may not be seen in the U.S. given that the majority of new cases here are found in men who have sex with men. While this story does an adequate job of conveying the gist of why the CDC is considering a recommendation to circumcise boys, it would have been strengthened if it had included,
In the end, we wonder if the piece didn’t confuse more than clarify for many viewers.
This story did not discuss the cost of circumcision or its coverage by insurance companies. Currently, some state Medicaid programs do not cover its cost. So this can be a significant issue.
The piece mentions that circumcision cut the risk of HIV infection by more than half in heterosexual African men, but it didn’t explain "half of what?". See our primer on absolute versus relative risks. Is the segment giving relative or absolute data? The story could have also mentioned other benefits associated with circumcision, such as reduced risk of urinary tract infections and cancer.
This story does not provide a sufficient discussion on the potential risks of circumcision, such as infection and minor bleeding. The story states: "…for adult men getting circumcised…it’s a bigger deal…adult men will tell you the recovery is tougher." What does a "bigger deal" and "tougher recovery" actually mean?
This story accurately communicated that the risk of contracting HIV in Africa is reduced in circumcised men. However, more information about the studies would have been useful. For example, the men in the studies were circumcised as adults. Dr. Snyderman states that circumcision does not reduce the spread of HIV among men who have sex with men; however, researchers do not actually know if circumcision affects the rate of HIV transmission in this population. It would be more accurate to say that there is currently no good evidence on the topic.
Studies found that circumcised men in Africa have a lower risk of contracting HIV from women compared to uncircumcised men; however, the piece makes it clear that these results may not be translated to the U.S. In Africa, HIV is primary spread by heterosexual sex, whereas, in the U.S. men who have sex with men make up the majority of newly diagnosed cases. Additionally, the overall risk of HIV is lower in the U.S. compared to Africa, a point that could have been made clearer in the story.
This story did not interview any independent sources. Including comments from both critics and proponents of the potential CDC recommendation would have been valuable. The story speculates on what the CDC will recommend and how the American Academy of Pediatrics will react, but hearing directly from the leadership of these organizations would have been more useful.
This story does not discuss additional ways to reduce the risk of contracting HIV, such as condom use and other safe sex practices.
The story makes it clear that the CDC has not yet made a formal recommendation regarding male circumcision. The segment discussed the differing trends through the years of the use of circumcision.
The story provides data indicating that circumcision is not a novel procedure in the U.S. It also makes it clear that a recommendation from the CDC on circumcision would be uNPRecedented.
There does not appear to be a press release associated with this story.
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.