This story reported on a study which found that using coronary CT angiography to screen for heart disease did not result in improved outcomes for patients during the 18 months in which they were studied.
It could have emphasized that neither this CT test – nor traditional cardiac catheterization – is recommended for the kinds of people evaluated in this South Korean study.
And it should have discussed the potential harms of the newer test – thereby missing the punchline that Reuters delivered: “Testing might lead to more harm than good.”
The story offered the context that “The study of CCTA screening comes as medical experts are re-evaluating the frequency and usefulness of other types of health screening, including mammographies for women and PSA testing for prostate cancer in men.”
The story provided information about the costs for the test.
The story indicated that 215 individuals who were screened were identified as having heart disease and received additional testing and treatment. Nonetheless, there was no statistical benefit between the groups of healthy individuals who did and did not undergo a CCTA test.
The CCTA test was reported as a non-invasive alternative to angiography. But there was no mention of the harms associated with this test which includes radiation exposure, which is higher than that associated with angiography; the potential for allergic reaction to the material injected to allow the vessels to be seen; and the potential for there to be harms from following up on something seen on the CCTA which turns out to be nothing.
(A sad, but fascinating case report can be found in the Archives of Internal Medicine Dec 14, 2010)
The story provided information about the study reported on including the number of people in the study, a little about those studied (i.e. these were people in South Korea around 50 years of age participating in a health screening) and that they were followed for a period of 18 months. The outcomes reported were that one person in the non-tested group had a fatal heart attack, and that one person in the tested group developed symptomatic heart disease.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The first author of the study reported on and the author of the editorial about that study appear to have been interviewed for this piece.
The story indicated that the CCTA was a possible non-invasive alternative to a cardiac catheterization. While this may be true in certain circumstances, neither test is recommended for the population of individuals who were in the study. That point could have been emphasized more clearly.
The story could have reported on the fact that the researchers did not report the effect of coronary calcium scores (information that the researchers collected but did not feed back to patients and providers); that is the test most often touted for coronary heart disease screening in asymptomatic people.
The story indicated that the test is available in the U.S. and is being used with increasing frequency. It is actually not clear how often it is being used – the article said “Some anecdotal evidence suggests such screening is happening and becoming more common.”
The story reported that CCTA use is becoming more common, though it is not currently recommended for use in people without symptoms to screen for heart disease.
Does not appear to rely on a news 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