This story delivers a clear conclusion: "Bottom line, a woman who wants to conceive a child at some point in the future should carefully consider the options — the risks, costs, and unknowns."
In the face of a practice "gaining in popularity," this story did a public service by explaining how much is not known about the practice of freezing eggs, and by issuing a clear caveat to consumers. This method could be applied to many health news stories every day.
Excellent. Estimate of $10,000 or more per procedure and states that insurance usually doesn’t cover it.
The story says there are "few reliable statistics" in one place and "there are no reliable numbers for how many women have chosen to have their eggs frozen so far" in another and "there are no guarantees" in a third place. So when you don’t know the denominator and are unsure of the numerator, it’s hard for women to pinpoint the potential benefits.
The sidebar has a list of bullets of "things to consider before freezing your eggs" that is, in essence, a list of potential harms.
The story is quite clear about the unclear picture of the evidence for egg freezing: "few reliable statistics…two professional groups still consider egg freezing experimental…there are no guarantees."
Several good independent sources cited.
Not applicable. The story didn’t really compare egg freezing with other fertility approaches, but that’s OK because it really focused on questions about the egg freezing trend. The story did touch on several advances "nudging the use of egg-freezing forward" and on several methods to test the genetic viability of both eggs and embryos.
The story is clear about the availability: "half of 282 US fertility centers surveyed offer egg freezing."
The story states that it "is new enough that there are few reliable statistics." Good context. And, at the end, it says that "Still, several advances are nudging the use of egg-freezing forward."
This story did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.