New Test for Colon Cancer Under Development
Reviewed By
Rating
New Test for Colon Cancer Under Development
Our Review Summary
A journalist wrote us this week asking, "What’s up with HealthDay and its news release rehashes? This is important because many mainstream media outlets and consumer health websites publish HealthDay stories." We can’t answer that but we wish it would change.
Why This Matters
There are active debates about the competing technologies for colon cancer screening and what evidence is best for any of them. This story didn’t touch on those debates, choosing to take only what the Mayo Clinic news release gave them.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
No discussion of costs.
Not Satisfactory
The story did an adequate job of quantifying the benefits seen in two trials, but didn’t comment on the small sample size in one study and didn’t disclose the size of the sample studied in the other.
Not Satisfactory
No discussion of false positives with this method.
Not Satisfactory
One study was in 10 people. No comment on the limitations of drawing conclusions from such a small sample. We weren’t told how many people were in the other study.
Satisfactory
No overt disease-mongering.
Not Satisfactory
Only the Mayo Clinic researcher quoted in the news release is quoted in the story. Given all of the competing approaches to colon cancer screening, someone independent of this work needed to comment to put this research into perspective.
Not Satisfactory
No comparison with colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy or with iFOBT or immunochemical fecal occult blood tests.
Not Satisfactory
At one point the story says the test is "under development." In another place it says the methods "were developed." No where is it clear if this is a method that is currently available.
Not Satisfactory
The story didn’t establish the true novelty of the approach.
Not Satisfactory
All information and quotes appear to be drawn from a Mayo Clinic news release. There is no sign of any independent reporting.
Total Score: 1 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