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 Views on Frequency of Osteoporosis Screening

Rating

3 Star

New Views on Frequency of Osteoporosis Screening

Our Review Summary

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.

 

Why This Matters

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.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

This story makes no mention of costs.

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

Not Satisfactory

There are no numbers in this story attached to the benefits of less frequent bone density testing.

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

Not Satisfactory

This story did not quantify any harms associated with bone density testing, with osteoperosis or with waiting too long to have ones bones tested.

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

Satisfactory

The story could have done more to evaluate the quality of evidence, but we will give it the benefit of the doubt.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease mongering in this story.

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

Satisfactory
This very short story includes perspectives of two other experts besides the study author.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The entire story is about different intervals for bone density screening.

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

Not Satisfactory

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.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

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.

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

Satisfactory

One quote – the story admits – comes from a news release.  But there is evidence of independent reporting elsewhere.

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.