Its few shortcomings could have been overcome easily with a little more space:
(Also fixing the typo in the final paragraph where colonoscopy was used when they meant colon cancer. We make ’em, too.)
The story’s interview quotes nailed the issue:
The story didn’t discuss costs. And cost is a significant issue here. The AP story, by comparison, reported that “colonoscopy costs vary widely but typically exceed $1,000.”
Adequate. The story said that almost 24% of Medicare enrollees in the study were re-examined within seven years “with no clear indication for the early repeated examination.”
One of the weak points in this story – and in many of the stories we saw on this study, frankly – was that, while harms or complications were mentioned, they were not defined nor quantified. What harms? And how often do they occur? This story had a quote that “I don’t think we’ve educated [people] well enough” about the possible risks – but the story itself didn’t do so.
The AP story, by comparison, at least mentioned “risks that occur more often with older patients, including complications from sedation, accidental performation of the colon and bleeding.”
Adequate job. Nice touch commenting on the geographic variations seen in the Medicare analysis as well.
The focus of this story was the opposite of disease-mongering.
The story used an American Cancer Society spokesman as an independent source.
In the last line, the story at least mentioned other approaches to colon cancer screening.
The availability of colonoscopies is not in question.
The relative novelty of this study was made clear in the story.
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
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.