Maybe somebody is paying attention to our criteria checklist. As you read this story, one by one, they are addressed (except for one).
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.
Costs of FOBT and of colonoscopy were included.
Sensitivity and specifity of the test were explained very well.
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.
Thorough analysis of how the study was done, including easy to understand discussion of sensitivity and specificity.
No disease mongering. Appropriate lifetime risk stats were cited.
We wish the story had included an interview with a US screening expert or a member of the US Preventive Services Task Force.
Good comparisons between the newer FOBT test, the older stool test, and colonoscopy.
The story explains that immunochemical FOBT is now largely replacing the older blood stool test.
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.
The story did not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
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/
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