The idea of lung cancer screening is certainly appealing. Lung cancer is common and deadly, very often found too late for treatment to be effective. So what if you could find it early? Unfortunately the results of studies on CT screening haven’t supported this fully and the largest and most rigorous study to date is still years away from providing answers.
This story does an excellent job of describing the promise and controversy of lung cancer screening. It presents the results of the contradictory studies and explains why some experts are hesitant to apply the conclusions of the 2006 study to policy decisions mandating screening.
The story accurately represents the cost of the scans, which are often not covered by insurance. The story could have mentioned that once a scan finds something suspicious, follow-up scans are needed at regular intervals, driving up the costs. These additional scans are typically covered by insurance.
Overall, a fine piece of reporting, following up on a state court ruling.
The story accurately represents the cost of the scans, which are often not covered by insurance. The story could have mentioned that once a scan finds something suspicious, biopsies and/or follow-up scans are needed at regular intervals, driving up the costs. These additional scans are typically covered by insurance.
The evidence doesn’t show a clear estimate of survival benefit, which the story made clear.
The story mentions that CT scanning could lead to unnecessary harms and procedures. The story could have specifically mentioned radiation exposure.
The story does a good job of describing the current study and the controversy around the results.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of lung cancer.
The story quotes multiple experts who provide valuable perspective.
The story accurately describes that there aren’t really any alternatives to preventing death from lung cancer other than quitting smoking.
Lung CT scans are clearly available.
Clearly screening for lung cancer is not a new idea.
Because the story quotes multiple experts, it’s clear that the story did not rely 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