Stool test good for catching colon cancer: study
Reviewed By
Rating
Stool test good for catching colon cancer: study
Our Review Summary
Maybe somebody is paying attention to our criteria checklist. As you read this story, one by one, they are addressed (except for one).
Why This Matters
It is important to remind consumers that there is good evidence for what stool tests – especially the newer versions – can accomplish. From a public health perspective – looking at population-wide benefits – they make a great deal of sense because you can reach large numbers of people at low cost.
Oftentimes, colonoscopy dominates the discussion about colon cancer screening, when, in fact, there are many reasons to shine more of the attention on the stool test.
Criteria
Satisfactory
Costs of FOBT and of colonoscopy were included.
Satisfactory
Sensitivity and specifity of the test were explained very well.
Satisfactory
Unlike many stories on screening tests, this one included information on false positive findings and the need for further testing. Story was careful to include the fact that in the study 10% of all participants had a false-positive finding on the stool test.
Satisfactory
Thorough analysis of how the study was done, including easy to understand discussion of sensitivity and specificity.
Satisfactory
No disease mongering. Appropriate lifetime risk stats were cited.
Not Satisfactory
We wish the story had included an interview with a US screening expert or a member of the US Preventive Services Task Force.
Satisfactory
Good comparisons between the newer FOBT test, the older stool test, and colonoscopy.
Satisfactory
The story explains that immunochemical FOBT is now largely replacing the older blood stool test.
Satisfactory
The growing popularity of the FOBT test…and that this study addresses the fact that “there’s been surprisingly little evidence that it really is highly specific to colon cancer were established in the story.
Satisfactory
The story did not rely solely on a news release.
Total Score: 9 of 10 Satisfactory
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