This piece reports on a study, which found that a newer genetic test is better at detecting abnormalities linked to autism when compared to the standard tests. This was a well-referenced piece that met many of our criteria, but it would have been improved had it included:
This is a story about an emerging diagnostic test for a childhood disorder that appears to have increasing prevalence. Knowledge of genetic predisposition to this disease is important.
The story did not mention specific costs of the CMA test; however, it did indicate that not all insurance will cover this test. Since the story stated that "both Children’s Hospital Boston and Montefiore have offered CMA testing for several years," some cost estimate could have easily been found.
The story adequately presents the efficacy of three different genetic tests in identifying abnormalities that may be associated with autism—karyotype: 2%; fragile X: 0.5%; CMA: 7%. It would have been helpful to let readers know that not all 933 people included in the study were tested with each of the three tests. According to the results, the CMA tests performed best in females with autistic disorder, but this was not reported.
There was no discussion regarding the emotional or social ramifications associated with receiving genetic testing results.
More information on who was included in this test would have been useful. The majority of the patients were diagnosed with autistic disorder (n=447) and Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) (n=454). A small number of participants had Asberger disorder (n=31).
This story did not exaggerate the prevalence or seriousness of autism.
This story included perspective from a pediatric geneticist unaffiliated with the research.
The story provided data comparing the two standard genetic tests to the newer CMA test.
The story clearly states that not all hospitals offer the newer chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) test. It could have also mentioned that genetic counseling services are not widely available in some geographic areas.
The story clearly points out that genetic tests for autism are often performed, but the CMA test is relatively new.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Questions to ask about new Alzheimer’s drug research by @KatKStone incl:
-does study focus on patient outcomes or surrogate markers?
-does study rely on selective subgroups? (yield more favourable outcomes)
-who were the patients? https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/08/6-questions-to-ask-when-writing-and-reading-about-new-alzheimers-research/#.YRw5xNVXths.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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