Study questions benefit of mammograms in women over 50
Reviewed By
Rating
Study questions benefit of mammograms in women over 50
Our Review Summary
This story reports on the results of a recent observational study from Norway that suggests routine mammograms are not as effective in reducing the risk of death from breast cancer as previously thought. While this story did a nice job of explaining the study and provided useful details about the participants, it failed to meet many of our criteria and missed the important issues. There was no discussion of the cost, harms associated with mammograms and overtreatment, or screening alternatives. In addition, the story could have better explained the study methods and described the results in absolute terms to give them clearer meaning. Clumsily, the online story also offers a "click to play" video as a sidebar – but it’s about an entirely different study – of mammography in women in their 30s. The piece is apparently more than 4 months old, yet the voice over in the piece still refers to it as "a new study" – thereby probably confusing many viewers. It sure confused us.
CNN just didn’t seem to have its heart in this story.
Why This Matters
The debate regarding mammograms is complex and this story oversimplified the results of the study and failed to touch on many of the important issues. For example, false positive results on a mammogram can cause undue stress and anxiety and serious adverse effects can results from unnecessarily treating breast cancer with chemotherapy, surgery, or radiation therapy. Most importantly, this story failed to frame the study results as an opportunity for women to make an informed decision to receive routine mammograms based on the risks and benefits.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
There is no mention of the cost or insurance coverage for mammograms – which is missing a major issue with this topic.
Not Satisfactory
The story only gives the results in terms of relative risk, but it would be more meaningful had it framed the results as Dr. H. Gilbert Welch did in the accompanying editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine: “The number of women who will not die from breast cancer rises from 995.6 to 996 per 1000 women with the addition of screening mammography.” In his editorial, Dr. Welsh also presents the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) to explain the results. In this case, 2,500 women will need to be screened to prevent 1 death from breast cancer. One of the strengths of the competing WebMD story was its use of quotes and stats from the accompanying editorial. This story didn’t even acknowledge that there was an editorial. We don’t understand how that could be overlooked.
Not Satisfactory
This story failed to note the potential harms of mammograms, including the emotional implications of false-positive results and the potential adverse effects from unneeded treatments, such as radiation therapy, surgery, and chemotherapy.
Satisfactory
This story does a good job of describing the methods of the study, including the different groups and the number of participants. However, more information on the average age and relatively short follow-up time of this study would have been helpful.
Satisfactory
The story does not exaggerate the prevalence or seriousness of breast cancer.
Not Satisfactory
This story did not include quotes from any independent sources. Patients and healthcare providers alike are deeply divided on this issue and providing additional perspectives on this issue would have helped readers.
Not Satisfactory
This story does not mention that women may choose to forego mammography screening. The story briefly mentions “breast cancer awareness,” which suggests the ability to recognize symptoms of breast cancer. Although also controversial, breast self-exams or physical exams by a clinician are possible screening alternatives.
Satisfactory
The availability of mammograms is not in question.
Satisfactory
Clearly mammograms are not a new diagnostic tool, but the story does point out that the findings from this recent study suggest lower benefits for reducing mortality than U.S. trials have previously reported.
Satisfactory
This piece does not rely solely on a press release.
Total Score: 5 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