This story on new cervical screening guidelines attempts–and largely succeeds–at putting the new recommendations in political and medical context.
But, despite its considerable length, it leaves big information gaps:
The story is well-sourced and is certainly granted sufficient length–1,250 words.
But at the end readers learn essentially that there are controversial new guidelines–but get little information to help them evaluate their credibility, applicability or relevance.
On the other hand, they do learn that politicians are using the guidelines to argue about health care reform.
That doesn’t serve readers who care about cervical cancer risks.
The report does not mention costs. Price should be taken into account whenever population screening is an issue.
Given how much emphasis the story puts on the political ramifications for health care reform, the omission is particularly unfortunate.
The story does not quantify benefits of screening.
The story mentions the harms of not catching cervical cancers early. It devotes some attention to the harms of over-treatment that follow unnecessary screening, particularly in low-risk younger women.
The story should have mentioned the likelihood of these risks.
The story fails to describe the evidence upon which the new recommendation is based. It makes only a glancing reference to "new medical information."
The story does nothing to exaggerate the prevalence or severity of cervical cancer.
Sourcing is excellent. Sources include:
The story adequately compares the two guidelines.
But it failed to compare the options–and consequences to patients–of getting screened and not getting screened.
The availability of Pap testing is assumed.
The relative 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 this story.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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