This story reports on a study that analyzed the cost-effectiveness of testing newborns for a set of eight metabolic conditions. The fact that there is no uniform set of screening tests and each state varies in its screening requirements is a problem that should be addressed. However, there are some flaws with this story.
The story does not explain that this was a cost-effectiveness analysis, a simulation model of different screening strategies, not a randomized trial. No actual patients were studied, rather assumptions were made based on the existing literature. Furthermore, the story does not provide any quantification of benefits and does not mention any harms of screening. The most important harms would be related to false positive results, which could result in unnecessary treatment and undue anxiety for the parents.
The story mentions the cost of the screening tests (between $1.90 and $25 for each). However, these are very different from the cost-effectiveness results reported in the study, which were as high as $94,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). This figure represents the actual societal costs of the screening test. Because so few newborns have the diseases in question and many positive results turn out to be false positive, the true costs to the healthcare system are greater than just the cost of the test itself.
The story repeatedly states that screening could save money, but it is not clear if this is the case or not. Most components of the multi-test screening strategy did dominate (i.e., less costly, more effective) the “no-test†strategy, however two did not – they were more effective, but also more costly.
The story appeared to rely too heavily on a press release from the Indiana School of Medicine. Not only are the same numbers reported in the story as the press release, but almost identical quotes are used as well. The story also only quotes the two principal investigators of the study – who are also both quoted in the press release. The story does not provide any additional perspectives.
For the study abstract in Pediatrics:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/117/5/S1/S287
For the Indiana University Press Release:
http://medicine.indiana.edu/news_releases/
The story mentions the cost of the screening tests (between $1.90 and $25 for each). However, these are very different from the cost-effectiveness results reported in the study, which were as high as $94,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). This figure represents the actual societal costs of the screening test. Because so few newborns have the diseases in question and many positive results turn out to be false positive, the true costs to the healthcare system are greater than just the cost of the test itself.
The story repeatedly states that screening could save money, but it is not clear from the abstract if this is the case or not. Most components of the multi-test screening strategy did dominate (i.e., less costly, more effective) the “no-test” strategy, however two did not – they were more effective, but also more costly.
No quantification of benefits of screening for the set of eight disorders is provided. Although the story does state that the disorders are found in 3,000 infants nationally, this figure applies to the current screening strategy, not to the new proposed strategy. The story does not provide the reader with estimates of how many more disorders would be detected with this new strategy compared to the existing one.
The story does not mention any harms of screening. The most important harms would be related to false positive results, which could result in unnecessary treatment and undue anxiety for the parents
The story does not explain that this was a cost-effectiveness analysis, a simulation model of different screening strategies, not a randomized trial. No actual patients were studied, rather assumptions were made based on the existing literature.
By describing the prevalence as 1 out of 1000 children born every year, the story does not appear to engage in disease mongering.
The story only quotes the two principal investigators of the study – who are also both quoted in the press release. The story does not provide any additional perspectives.
The story does mention the alternatives – such as no testing or testing for some combination of other diseases.
The story does mention that screening for multiple diseases is available.
The story does not mention if bundling the screening tests through tandem mass spectrometry is new or not.
The story appeared to rely too heavily on a press release from the Indiana School of Medicine. Not only are the same numbers reported in the story as the press release, but almost identical quotes are used as well. The story only quotes the two principal investigators of the study – who are also both quoted in the press release. The story does not provide any additional perspectives.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
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