This story did a good job describing the results of a recently published study which continues to follow a large group of men in Sweden who either had immediate surgery to remove their prostate or waited until they had evidence of that their prostate cancer progressed before undergoing treatment.
Strong caveat in the fourth sentence.
The story included information about how prostate cancer is commonly screened for in the US and that this differs from the approach used with the men in the study and that this could influence the outcomes.
Well done!
Helping men understand when there may be and when there may not be benefit from aggressive immediate treatment of prostate cancer is valuable for those diagnosed with early stage disease.
There was no information about the respective financial costs of the treatments for prostate cancer discussed. Costs would include treating the double digit rates of incontinence and erectile dysfunction in these younger men who do have surgery. The surgery may help them live longer, but many, especially since younger at time of surgery, live decades with these potential harms and folllowup costs of the surgical choice. This should get at least a line in such stories.
The story did a good job of identifying those men (i.e. those younger than 65 at the time of symptomatic prostate cancer ) who reduced their chance of dying by having surgery to remove their prostate. Good use of absolute numbers.
The story provided readers with insight that for men younger than 65 years of age at the time of diagnosis, there was a significantly greater chance of dying in the men who did not have immediate surgery to remove their prostate gland. The story also described that a substantial proportion of men who did have surgery to remove their prostate gland experienced sexual and/or urinary problems. Best job of the three stories we reviewed in quantifying harms.
The story did a fine job providing information about where the study reported on had been published, the number of men and the length of time they had been studied, their age, the two treatments the men were randomly assigned to, as well as background information on the first indication that the men had prostate cancer.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story included quotes from the clinician who wrote the editorial which accompanied the study reported on as well as another clinician without direct ties to the study detailed in the story.
The story provided some of the comparative information from the study reported on about surgery to remove the prostate and waiting to see if prostate cancer would progress before undergoing active treatment. In addition, the story included a list of the common utilized approaches to active treatment of prostate cancer.
The story was clear about the fact that the overwhelming majority of men in the study had had their prostate cancer first detected because of symptoms which is means that they were in a different place in the prostate cancer timeline than men whose first inkling about prostate cancer is that they have an elevated PSA level in their blood. So it describes practices in Europe many years ago which are different than current care in the US.
The story was clear the the men in the study reported on had been part of the investigation which started in 1989.
The story did not rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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