This story on revised guidelines for cervical cancer screening puts them in medical and political context. It does an adequate job of describing the new guidelines themselves. It is well sourced.
But the story fails the reader in two important ways:
But it falls short in broader terms. When controversial new guidelines are proposed, a reader reasonably wants to know what the guidelines are based on, how they might apply to them, and what the risks of getting the screening–or not getting it–are. This story doesn’t discuss those issues.
The story quotes two sources who dispute the notion that the guidelines are motivated by a desire to save money.
Unfortunately, it never says how much money the test costs–or whether applying the new guidelines would cost or save money.
The story fails to quantify the benefits or risks of screening.
The story describes in paragraph two the potential harms of over-screening–that the testing led to stress, anxiety and some unnecessary treatments.
This point is emphasized by a quote in the following paragraph.
In the last paragraph, the story briefly describes the epidemiological evidence upon which the guidelines are based.
But it’s too little too late. The reader doesn’t know what data the panel used to change the testing guidelines.
The story does nothing to exaggerate the prevalence or severity of cervical cancer.
Sourcing is excellent. Sources include:
The story describes the new guidelines in layman’s terms, and briefly describes the old ones. It makes it difficult for the reader to find and digest this information, however.
It should have indicated the risks of not getting screened at all.
The availability of Pap testing is assumed.
The novelty of cervical cancer screening is not in question in this story.
The story does not draw from any of the press releases associated with the guidelines’ release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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