It’s little wonder that there are no independent perspectives in the story when it jumps the gun on when the data are even presented. How could anyone react when they haven’t heard or seen the data?
We sympathize with the reporter asked to wrap up the teleconference presentations (virtually an audio news release) on the three studies. But the story lacked:
There is a lot of information available about prostate cancer testing and treatment this week because of a big genitourinary cancer meeting in Florida. That doesn’t mean all the news is ready for prime time. And, for journalists who do choose to report on the meeting, it doesn’t mean that they can or should slack off on scrutinizing the evidence or providing context for readers. In fact, the situation demands it even more.
Failure to do so only contributes to consumer confusion and misunderstanding.
There was no discussion about how costs might be affected by any of the three aspects of prostate cancer testing and treatment described in this story. And all three had significant cost implications.
The story did an incomplete job explaining the possible benefits to patients of the various changes to prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment that were described.
For example, the story reported the finding that surgeons need to perform 1,600 robotic prostatectomies before they are as proficient with the technology as they are with conventional surgery. The story went on to explain that the robotic approach ‘offers surgeons three-dimensional vision and such improvements as better magnification and hand tremor filter’ but failed to explain what advantage that conferred to the patient. Does ti improve outcomes? Does it change the rates at which side effects occur?
Similarly – in detailing the potential benefit of using the medication Avodart to treat men with early stage prostate cancer, the story mentioned the relative reduction in risk of disease progression. However without knowing how often disease progression occurs, it is not possible to make an informed decision about the value in taking this medication.
Using odd wording, the story says Avodart “may delay the progression of low-risk, early prostate cancer among men who choose a wait-and-see approach to treatment.” Wait-and-see means wait-and-see.
The potential for harm associated with adopting any of the aspects of prostate cancer testing and treatment covered in the story were not clearly or completely discussed.
For example – what are the consequences of a surgeon not being proficient with robotic surgery?
What are the side effects for the medication Avodart? How often are they seen?
Although the story explained that the information came from talks that were to be given at an upcoming meeting, it did not make clear that there is limited peer review that place with findings presented at meetings. So it is difficult to get independent perspectives on work that hasn’t even been presented yet – much less published. And the findings should only be considered preliminary. None of these caveats were included.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
There do not appear to have been any independent sources used to verify the veracity of the information presented at the meeting or to provide context for the details reported.
The story didn’t give any context on a number of points regarding alternatives. Each could have been addressed easily with a little re-wording or a few extra words.
The story reported on three different aspects of prostate cancer testing and treatment – PSA testing, medical therapy as an adjunct to active surveillance, and data about the learning curve in the use of robots in the surgical treatment of prostate cancer.
If one reads between the lines, one can infer the widespread availability of all three approaches from the story.
It is possible to infer from the story what is the relative novelty of the three approaches reported on: a potential modified schedule for PSA testing; off label use of an already FDA approved medication; and new data on the learning curve for a robotic surgical approach.
The story identified the teleconference that was the source of this story and it appears to be the only source of information used in this piece. At the time this story was published, the results of the studies described had not yet even been presented. So the teleconference, with only the authors presenting, is the equivalent of an audio news release. And it was the only source for this story.
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