Test? What test?
This story about a “test” for sleep apnea in children is based on a study that merely suggests targets for research in possibly developing a test of proteins in urine. The conclusion of the study authors was, “Future studies aiming to validate this approach as a screening method of habitually snoring children appears warranted.”
Reporting? What reporting?
This story lifts quotes from a news release issued by the American Thoracic Society without attribution. It does not include any independent sources (who likely would have pointed out many caveats and limitations in the study and the news release). And it fails to note the financial conflicts of interest of the researchers, even though these conflicts were clearly noted in the journal article summarizing the study.
Medical research is full of examples of ideas that appeared promising – only to fail during further research and development. News stories should not jump ahead of what the evidence actually shows.
In most cases, a story about preliminary research would not be expected to include a discussion of costs. However, because this story implies that the test is near at hand, costs should have been addressed, especially since the story pointed out that sleep studies are expensive.
This story improperly implies that, without expensive sleep studies, sleep apnea in children may go untreated. Review articles point out that pediatricians routinely manage such cases successfully without needing sleep studies.
For example see “Obstructive sleep apnea in children: in the March 1, 2004 issue of American Family Physician: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.liboff.ohsu.edu/pubmed/15023015
There is no mention of potential harms, such as the risk that false positive results of a test based on this research might cause some children to be treated for a condition they don’t actually have or that false negatives could mean some children with a serious condition might not receive timely treatment.
Based on this story most readers would likely believe that a urine test for sleep apnea in children will be available soon, when actually the research is at a preliminary stage and far more study and development is needed. The study the story is based on included only 120 participants and did not deal with many of the practical hurdles that would need to be overcome before it is known whether such a test will work in routine clinical practice. Although the story includes quotes from one researcher who notes that their findings “open up the possibility” that a simple test could be developed and that the results of this study need to be validated, these caveats are relegated to the bottom of the story. The story does not provide adequate information on the sensitivity and specifity of the test and the positive and negative predictive values.
By failing to note that children who have breathing problems during sleep are typically diagnosed and managed successfully in regular clinical practice, this story unduly alarms parents by depicting a hidden, lurking threat to their children.
This story fails on both counts. There is no independent source to provide perspective on the study. In the conflict of interest statement that is included with the published article on their study, the authors note a number of financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
Although this story mentions sleep studies, it fails to note that sleep apnea in children is routinely diagnosed by pediatricians through clinical examinations. Indeed, a review article on sleep apnea in children (American Family Physician, March 1, 2004) notes that the use of sleep studies is controversial and that experts in this area say these expensive overnight studies are not required for diagnosis.
The headline and lead of this story refer to a test even though (as the quoted researcher points out near the end of the piece) the proposed test has not been validated or developed.
For a number of years a variety of researchers have published studies suggesting that protein patterns in urine might be useful someday to help screen children with breathing problems during sleep. This story does not explain what is new about the results of this study compared to earlier work.
This team of researchers concluded that their latest trial produced more accurate results than earlier attempts, but that point was not included in the news story.
The quotes in this story are lifted from a news release distributed by the American Thoracic Society.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/ats-utf120209.php
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