NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

New study widens debate on the value of mammograms

Rating

5 Star

New study widens debate on the value of mammograms

Our Review Summary

This story clearly outlines how a study of mammography screening in Norway feeds into debate about the value of breast cancer screening. It includes the comments of experts who have a variety of perspectives on the latest data.


 

 

Why This Matters

Women have been whipsawed by often confusing statements and claims about whether and when to get a mammogram. This story lays out how the latest study data points to benefits of screening… but that the benefits appear to be smaller than most people believe.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not mention the cost of mammography (or of follow up tests and treatments) to the individual, or, collectively, to society.  Based on the results of this study, 2,500 women would have to be screened every other year for a decade in order to prevent one death from breast cancer.

As the story points out, during that same time 1,000 of those women would have at least one false alarm and 500 would undergo an unnecessary biopsy, thus adding to the price tag.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story reports both the 10 percent reduction in breast cancer deaths that the researchers attributed to screening, as well as the calculation that 2,500 women would have to be screened for a decade to prevent one breast cancer death.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The story points out that there are many false alarms among women who are screened with mammography and that most of the cancers that are found and treated would not have been lethal. It notes calculations from an editorial accompanying the study that for every breast cancer death prevented five or more women are treated for tumors that would never have become lethal.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

The story accurately describes the study and highlights some of the advantages of the methods used in this study compared to earlier studies. We wish it had mentioned some of the limitations of the observational methods used. For instance, the researchers mentioned that a longer study may have found a larger benefit to screening. Nonetheless, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story does not exaggerate the threat of breast cancer and emphasizes that this study and others indicate that the effect of mammography screening is more modest than most women believe.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The story includes more than one independent source. However, the story does not tell readers the sources of funding, which were the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The story highlights experts talking about the decision about whether or not to get screening mammograms, and therefore addresses even the option of foregoing mammograms.  

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

Although the availability of mammography is not at issue in this story, it could have pointed out that the researchers attributed most of the decrease in breast cancer deaths to multidisciplinary breast cancer management teams. While all the women screened by mammography in Norway had access to these expert teams, women in the U.S. who get mammography may not have access to this sort of treatment support.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

In this case, the novelty of the approach is the study method. The story reports that Norway provided researchers with a unique opportunity, since mammography screening was phased in over a nine year period, thus allowing researchers to compare the outcomes of women who were screened to similar women who were not.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

The story includes interviews and other information that does not appear to come from a news release.

Total Score: 9 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.