Although the story did not hit all our marks, it did provide some important context for readers, especially patients who are considering fertility options. We wish most of all that it had spent more time with a few independent experts to provide some stronger analysis of the study and to help readers understand the potential harms involved in fertility treatments.
The world of fertility medicine can be maddening — both for patients and reporters. Costs are high. New techniques are being touted with some frequency. And even though there appears to be a wealth of data about outcomes, the information is incomplete and hard to assess. Because fertility patients are dealing with one of life’s most difficult health challenges — the inability to have a child — it is all the more important for reporters to separate the emotions surrounding infertility from the evidence behind fertility treatments. This refreshing story accomplishes this, for the most part, with just a few missing elements.
Important information about costs is provided here.
The story quantifies the benefits of multiple IVF treatments (and the diminishing returns) in two different ways. Here’s the best summation: “Over the five-year period, some 300,000 women had more than half a million IVF cycles that resulted in 171,327 first-time deliveries. The live birth rate was 36 percent on the first IVF try, 48 percent with a second cycle and 53 percent with a third attempt. Among those who tried seven or more times, the chance of success was 56 percent — hardly any better than the 53 percent after three tries.”
This story skips over any potential harms. This is problematic because women undergoing fertility treatments are often given high doses of hormones and other drugs that can have side effects and often are experimental.
The story does a good job evaluating the quality of the evidence. It also provides some great context about why data about success rates can be misleading. It also presented some of the study’s limitations. The story could have pointed out that these results have not been published and have not been peer reviewed. It does say they were presented at a conference but so are a lot of published results. The findings sound dramatic, so that additional context would be important lest the peer review process take some of the drama out of the results when they are published (one assumes) at a later data.
The story does not engage in disease mongering.
The story clearly draws on a range of sources and research, but we only are allowed to hear from one clinical voice in the the story: the study’s lead author. There is a paraphrase from a fertility advocacy organization at the very end of the story, but what was needed here was some clear eyed analysis of the evidence from an independent perspective.
The story at least touches on alternatives to IVF, but it does not make any clear comparisons.
It is clear from the story that IVF treatments are widely available. The study encompassed more than 300,000 women nationwide.
The story did a good job of covering what is new here: more is not more. The story could have done a better job showing how frequently couples actually go through three cycles of IVF. This is a bit of an omission. Also it’s not clear how often couples with fertility choose IVF over less-invasive treatments.
The story does not rely solely on a press release.
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.