Despite its brevity, this story about revised guidelines for cervical cancer screening does a few things well:
Having said that, the story fails to include viewpoints from any independent experts. It also fails to discuss costs.
Essentially, the story distilled the revised guidelines on the readers’ behalf. This is necessary for such a story. But it is not sufficient.
The story fails to indicate how much a Pap test costs, or whether the new guidelines would cost or save money.
The story reports that half of women diagnosed with cervical cancer have never had a Pap test, and another 10 percent hadn’t had one in five years. So it at least indirectly addressed benefit.
The story reports that many cervical abnormalities discovered by screening "usually go away on their own, and unnecessary treatment increases girls’ risk of premature labor years later."
The story does not describe the evidence upon which the guideline revisions are based. Its says only that ACOG "cited studies."
The story does nothing to exaggerate the prevalence or severity of cervical cancer.
The story essentially cites no sources other than the guidelines themselves.
An expert voice or two would have been useful to help people understand the meaning of the guidelines.
The story clearly compares the revised screening guidelines with the most recent ones. It also cites the link between women not being screened and getting cervical cancer.
The availability of Pap smear tests is not in question in this story.
No claim is made for the novelty of Pap tests.
The story does not draw from any of the press releases linked to these guidelines.
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