It gets three stars because of the number of criteria it did address. But it’s how the story failed on key criteria – such as evaluating the evidence, discussing harms and benefits – that really matters.
This was a cross sectional study in small group of men in a referral center. This type of study design is fraught with flaws, especially that one cannot make causal inferences. Obviously the length of the list of limitations the researchers address dampens any conclusions about length of a crotch.
One wonders what the journal editors or peer reviewers were thinking. Did they conclude “As long as the researchers list all the flaws in this study in a paragraph on limitations, then we’ll publish it” ???
At least the story ended with appropriate caution from an independent expert, who said:
“We would all like a simple, noninvasive way to predict potential problems with fertility in men, but unfortunately, this one is not ready for prime time. We have a long way to go before we can use anogenital distance as a determinant of future fertility in men.”
Then why was it worth the story?
Not applicable. The cost of such an approach is not in question.
Benefits are not addressed – and this ties in to our comments in the “harms” criterion above. You don’t test unless you know what good it will do. And the story is silent on that potential benefit. It just raises the picture of more testing without any discussion of benefit.
There was no discussion of harms. But this story promotes a “simple…noninvasive way to test testicular function and reproductive potential in adult men.” So presumably one would act on the basis of what this simple test shows. That opens questions about the sensitivity and specificity of this approach – neither of which are addressed and both of which raise issues of potential harm, overtesting and overtreatment for the man.
Maybe not so “simple” as described.
The journal article itself lists all sorts of potential limitations to the study, none of which are mentioned in the story. For example:
This was a cross sectional study in small group of men in a referral center. This type of study design is fraught with flaws, especially that one cannot make causal inferences. Obviously the length of the list of limitations dampens any conclusions about length of a crotch.
Two independent experts were quoted – although one is identified as doing research in this field so her laudatory comments about the importance of this work might be understandable.
No comparison is made with any other method of testing testicular function or reproductive potential in adult men.
The availability of such a measurement approach is not in question.
The story describes other research on short anogenital spans, so it’s clear there is other research on this topic.
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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