The new test looks for volatile organic compounds that are presumably uniquely exhaled by people with asthma. When used in combination with a somewhat standard test, the new process may provide somewhat greater ability to diagnose asthma. The story rightly notes the study was conducted in a small number of subjects and is far from definitive. Would that more stories could resist the temptation to gush about new medical gadgets before their benefits are proven.
Asthma is a relatively common disease that appears to be increasing in its frequency. In its classic form, asthma is relatively easy to diagnose. However many patients present with atypical symptoms and require more extensive testing, including provocative testing with methacholine, for an accurate diagnosis. An easy-to-use, non-invasive and definitive test would be an advantage for many patients .
Since this device is experimental, we can accept the fact that the story didn’t put a specific price tag on the technology. The story did note that cost might limit initial use of the device.
The story tells us the percentage of asthma patients who were correctly diagnosed by the electronic nose, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and spirometry. It provided this data in absolute terms and didn’t muddy the waters with relative comparisons of the three techniques. Although the study data by itself might suggest that the new device is superior to the other methods, the comments from the expert sources put the results in the appropriate context. They make it clear that we can’t tell yet whether this technology represents a better option than existing techniques.
Although there appears to be little risk of harm from the new testing procedure itself, the story makes no mention of the downside that can accompany a faulty diagnosis–whether a false positive or negative. False positive tests (diagnosing asthma when the patient has another disease) and false negatives (failing to diagnose asthma) can have significant consequences. A brief comment on the potential harms associated with a faulty test would have been helpful.
The story did a good job of describing what happened in the study being discussed. It notes that the "electronic nose" device was pitted against other diagnostic techniques to compare their accuracy for confirming physician-diagnosed asthma. Importantly, independent sources emphasized that this was a small study looking at patients with one particular type of asthma. They noted that much more research would be needed to prove that the device is effective in a broad range of patients.
The story cites two independent sources and identifies their affiliations.
The story discusses current methods for diagnosing asthma including the physical exam, spirometry, and nitric oxide tests.
Although the story never explicitly states that the device being discussed is experimental, comments from the experts make it pretty clear that the technology is still in development.
The story explained in reasonable detail how the device differs from traditional diagnostic methods. The story could have done a bit more to explain that "electronic nose" technology has been in development for quite some time and is already in use in other fields (i.e. explosives detection). However, the story’s description of the device was pretty restrained and it didn’t try to hype the technology as "new."
It’s clear that this story wasn’t based exclusively on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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