The recent FDA approval of an HPV vaccine has made headlines all over the world not only because it will be the first vaccine marketed to prevent cancer, but also because of the intense political and social debates that it has inspired. This story reports on the FDA’s decision, but has many flaws, providing little context and perhaps leading readers to many incorrect assumptions.
Although the story mentions some clinical trials, the story does not adequately describe the strength of the available evidence. Most importantly, the story does not explain that the clinical trials did not include actual cases of cervical cancer, but rather a pre-cancerous condition. The story does not mention harms, provides quantification of benefits in relative terms only, and does not mention the obvious alternative – pap smears. Nor does the story mention the use of condoms to prevent HPV or other communicable diseases. The story also only quotes one expert, the president of the American Cancer Society. The story should have provided additional perspectives.
Although the story describes the number of deaths per year from cervical cancer along with the lifetime risk of HPV infection, by mentioning the 240,000 women worldwide who die of cervical cancer, the story exaggerates the benefits of the vaccine. Cervical cancer is much more common in the developing world, where women are the least likely to have access to or be able to pay for the vaccine.
The story mentions that the cost of the three-injection series is $360. The story should have provided more context. For example, implementing a full-scale immunization program for all females age 9 to 26 in the U.S. would cost billions of dollars.
The story provides quantification of benefits in relative terms only. Failing to give context may lead readers to incorrect assumptions.
The story does not mention any potential harms.
Although the story mentions some clinical trials, the story does not adequately describe the strength of the available evidence. Most importantly, the story does not explain that the clinical trials did not include actual cases of cervical cancer, but rather a pre-cancerous condition.
Although the story mentions the number of deaths per year from cervical cancer along with the lifetime risk of HPV infection, by mentioning the 240,000 women worldwide who die of cervical cancer, the story exaggerates the benefits of the vaccine. Cervical cancer is much more common in the developing world, where women are the least likely to have access to or be able to pay for the vaccine.
The story only quotes one expert, the president of the American Cancer Society. The story should have provided additional perspectives.
The story does mention the obvious alternative – pap smears. Nor does the story mention the use of condoms to prevent HPV or other communicable diseases.
The story clearly states that the vaccine was recently approved by the FDA.
The story clearly states that the vaccine is a novel approach.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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