A new weapon against breast cancer: Technology could improve the odds of detection
Reviewed By
Rating
A new weapon against breast cancer: Technology could improve the odds of detection
Our Review Summary
This story is about a relatively new option for breast cancer screening – digital mammography. The story is clear that this is a new type of mammography, but that it is not available everywhere. The story mentions the existing alternative, film mammography and explains that digital mammograms are superior to film mammograms in younger women, those with dense breast tissue, and those who are pre- or peri-menopausal. Although there is mention of a trial, the author does not describe the study design. Therefore, the reader has very little information on which to evaluate the evidence for or against digital mammography. The author does not provide quantitative estimates of benefits, nor any potential harms or costs. If all film mammography machines were to be replaced with digital machines, the costs would likely be substantial.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
No mention of costs. The author should have mentioned that the cost of installing a digital system is substantial and the cost-effectiveness of digital mammography as a screening program has not yet been evaluated.
Not Satisfactory
No quantitative estimates of the benefit of digital mammography are presented.
Not Satisfactory
No mention of harms.
Not Satisfactory
Although there is mention of a large trial, there is no description of the study design and other studies that may have conflicting results. The reader, therefore, does not have enough information on which to evaluate the evidence.
Satisfactory
Multiple sources are quoted.
Satisfactory
The story does mention plain film mammograms and explains that digital is better in younger women with dense breast tissue.
Satisfactory
The story is clear that although this is a new technology, it is not available everywhere.
Satisfactory
There is no evidence that this story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Total Score: 6 of 10 Satisfactory
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