The story includes some independent experts’ viewpoints and presented some of the study’s limitations that were ignored in the Los Angeles Times story. Like the Times story, though, this one could have spent more time explaining the data behind the findings.
Osteoporosis is a serious and debilitating condition that hits women especially hard in old age. Screening every two years has been a common clinical recommendation, and this study challenges that. For patients to know how to factor this information into their health planning, they need a complete picture of the science involved in these conclusions. This story does a better job than the LA Times story in presenting that picture – but only barely.
This story makes no mention of costs.
There are no numbers in this story attached to the benefits of less frequent bone density testing.
This story did not quantify any harms associated with bone density testing, with osteoperosis or with waiting too long to have ones bones tested.
The story could have done more to evaluate the quality of evidence, but we will give it the benefit of the doubt.
The entire story is about different intervals for bone density screening.
The story talks about "women’s T-score, which is a measure of bone density", but it never explains how a bone density test is conducted or who might conduct it. Does a woman have to go to a specialist? What kind of equipment is involved? It doesn’t take much to address these questions.
The novelty here is not bone density screening, but less frequent use of this widely used test. Sadly, research that looks at screening intervals is a novelty. But neither story establishes that novelty. The study appears to be quite significant given the size of the cohort and the time period of the study.
One quote – the story admits – comes from a news release. But there is evidence of independent reporting elsewhere.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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