This was a well-written, informative story that identifies the challenges to implementing a rational approach to prostate cancer screening.
But we thought the two closing patient profiles – the only patients profiled in the piece – wrapped up the story in an imbalanced way.
This is a useful piece to help readers understand the notion that testing is not an isolated intervention and that thinking ahead can be helpful in having medical care that matches one’s personal values and interests.
There was no discussion of costs, either in terms of the actual dollar value involved in routine PSA testing or for follow-up biopsy and treatment.
The story did mention a “National Cancer Institute study of 76,000 men that failed to find a screening benefit after 10 years”
The article does address the harms of overdiagnosis and treatment, though does not provide quantitative data. We’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.
The story did not actually provide readers with much information about the particular study it was reporting on. While it did have numerous insightful comments from experts in the field, it was rather vague about the study design. It was worth noting that it was a survey study, so people self-reported their PSA testing activity. That’s always a limitation.
Numerous independent sources without ties to the study reported on were quoted as part of this story.
One thing that does concern us is the way the piece ended. The story profiled two men – and both choose to be screened.One recently found a small cancer, and is thinking of “having the whole thing taken out.” Why was there no balancing profile of a man who chooses not to be screened?
The story presented information about the impact of being tested for prostate cancer using the PSA test versus not having the test. It was especially clear about the idea that a life expectancy of 10 years as a man thinks about potential benefit.
But, again, the option of not being screened wasn’t reflected in the patients profiled in the piece.
It’s clear from the story that ‘routine’ PSA testing is readily available.
The story was clear that PSA testing is readily available and routinely used by the percentages of men indicated in the story.
Does not rely solely or largely on a news release.
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