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 -
Read Original Story

Scientists develop blood test for Down’s Syndrome


2 Star


Scientists develop blood test for Down’s Syndrome

Our Review Summary

This was a single-source story that didn’t adequately explain availability, costs, limitations of the evidence, or potential harms.


Why This Matters

The researchers wrote: “Such a noninvasive approach will avoid the risk of miscarriages of normal pregnancies caused by current, more invasive procedures.”  That would be a big step.  But there are many big steps that must be taken in the research process before that prediction can play out in reality.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

No discussion of cost. If a story can claim that something “may soon be” available, it ought to be able to project cost.  Of course, it’s probably way too early to project anything meaningful on either count, but therein lies the weakness in such story framing.

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


The story stated that the researchers “were able to correctly diagnose 14 cases where there were extra copies of the chromosome and 26 normal fetuses.”

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

Not Satisfactory

No discussion of potential harms – of sensitivity and specificity issues that can only be established in a much larger trial.  The need for a larger trial was mentioned, but no hint of unestablished potential harms.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story never mentioned the limitation of drawing conclusions from such a small study.  Granted, it stated that “the test now needed to be trialed in a larger study of about 1,000 pregnancies” but then concluded “that could lead to changed in clinical practice within two years.  That’s a very enthusastic claim for a very aggressive timetable.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


No disease mongering.

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

Not Satisfactory

No independent perspective, which was sorely needed – especially regarding predictions of availability and impact on the field.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story didn’t even mention any of the other research being done in this field to improve prenatal diagnosis.

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

Not Satisfactory

Allowing researchers to claim that a test “may soon be” available after a study in just 40 pregnancies is not wise journalism.  If the story had turned to an independent expert, perhaps this enthusiasm may have been put into a better perspective. The path to commercialization is likely years in the making.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The story didn’t explain that the test used in the study is actually a group of existing tests.  And it didn’t even mention any of the other research being done in this field to improve prenatal diagnosis.

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

Not Applicable

Not applicable because we can’t judge the extent to which the story relied on a news release.  We do know it quoted only one of the researchers.

Total Score: 2 of 9 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.