This was a single-source story that didn’t adequately explain availability, costs, limitations of the evidence, or potential harms.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
No independent perspective, which was sorely needed – especially regarding predictions of availability and impact on the field.
The story didn’t even mention any of the other research being done in this field to improve prenatal diagnosis.
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.
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.
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.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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