We give the story credit for highlighting the main point — that the benefit is small and that women should be informed and given a choice. The piece could have ended with that. it also would have been good to comment more on the science of the studies which were not really particulary powerful or well designed to support the claims (e.g. they don’t advance the science that mammograms save lives) or generalize well to the provider population at large.
Demonstrating far more balance than some other stories, this report allowed the chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force to explain their recommendations:
But still missing in the piece was any recognition of the possibility that a decline in mammography in women in their 40s could be a good thing.
At some point, costs must enter into this discussion. But this story never got there.
The story states:
“The data that we have suggests that 1 in a thousand will benefit from mammograms in the 40-49 age,” (the USPSTF chair) said. “There are whole lots of assumptions that are not supported by the data they presented.”
We wouid have like to have seen more discussion of the potential harms in 85% of biopsies being non-cancerous. But since the story did actually quantify the number of false positives, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
Better than the competing Denver Post story if only because CNN allows the US Preventive Services Task Force chair to explain their recommendations – something the Denver story didn’t do.
But there could have been more scrutiny of the studies reported on. There was not much focus on whether we can really learn much from the single site retrospective study of their biopsies (did they compare to biopsies from patients who did not have screening mammograms? on what basis were they claiming that they were more treatable? and that being more treatable leads to longer life?).
Good sourcing, including – unlike the competing Denver Post story – input from the chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force.
There was a far more balanced discussion of harms and benefits in this story, although the use of personal opinion and recommendations, and the ending resulted in an imbalance in the piece. Excerpts that demonstrate this imbalance:
Wouldn’t a more balanced way to end the piece – focusing on the shared decision-making element so important in this issue – have been to end with this:
Nonethless, all of this was in the piece, so we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.
Not applicable. The availability of mammograms is not in question.
Adequate job putting the new studies in context of past research and recommendations.
It’s clear the story didn’t rely solely 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