Yet there was still a key oversight. The lead sentence implies that more thorough screening would lead to improved health outcomes, even though the study did not examine that question. On the other hand, this story contains the strongest independent comment pointing out the lack of evidence about the effects of statin treatment on children who may have elevated cholesterol levels, but do not have heart disease.
It would be an interesting research project to have news consumers read all three stories we reviewed and to test their comprehension.
Testing for cholesterol or other risk factors is useful only when it helps to reduce disease. We hope readers got the point that the evidence is sketchy and that statin treatment in kids is controversial.
The story says universal screening would be expensive, but it does not provide any dollar amounts. Cost is clearly relevant to the story. The researchers blame the lack of health care insurance for the high proportion of parents and grandparents of these children who have never had a cholesterol test. The story does not address the issue of how families would pay for ongoing treatment if doctors prescribed it.
The lead sentence of this story says tens of thousands of children would benefit from cholesterol-lowering treatment if only more of them had their cholesterol levels checked. Readers may not see the comment in the bottom half of the story saying that there is no evidence that such treatment of children prevents heart disease later in life. Again, we wish those statements had been juxtaposed for emphasis or that the story had been restructured to clearly indicate the difference of opinion on evidence. Instead, the study authors get the last word, driving home the point once more about the "prudence" of universal screening, so we’re going to rule this criterion unsatisfactory. We could have done that with the disease-mongering category instead. The story should be dinged for this issue in some place or another.
The story points out that cholesterol-lowering drug treatment in children is controversial and the safety of such treatment has not been studied in children. However, the story does not mention any of the specific harms of statin treatment that have been identified in studies of adults.
The story reports that the results are based on data from screening more than 20,000 school children in
This was a mixed bag in and of itself. The story includes a quote from an expert saying there is no evidence that drug treatment of children with high cholesterol prevents heart disease, but the lead of the story says tens of thousands of children “may benefit from cholesterol-lowering medication…
The journal Pediatrics stated that the study authors did not report any relevant financial interests. The story did include comments from an independent expert.
The story includes an expert who argues against universal cholesterol screening for children. It also points out that lifestyle changes would be part of the treatment considered for children who have elevated cholesterol.
The availability of cholesterol screening is not at issue.
The novelty of cholesterol screening and treatment is not at issue here.
The story does not appear to be based on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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