This story was generally clearly written and delivered an important reminder to women that screening too often isn’t harmless – and that there’s a reason for evidence-based screening guidelines.
Unfortunately, the story is confusing in a way that could mislead women about how often Pap smears are recommended. The story cites scenarios of TWO negative Pap smears and asks what the next step should be. “…a woman age 30 to 60 has had two consecutive normal Pap tests but no HPV tests; two normal Paps and a negative HPV test; or a negative HPV test but no recent Pap tests. In all of those cases, guidelines recommend waiting three years before screening the patient again..” But the standard recommendation is THREE negative Pap smears before moving to every 2-3 year screening. The study’s scenarios stipulated that a woman has “a current normal Pap smear result” in addition to the past history above. Readers could be misled, since the story implies that only 2 negative smears are needed (or a single negative HPV) before adopting less frequent testing.
The story ended with some sound advice for women: “We need to shift toward the wellness visit as opposed to, ‘You have to come in here every year for a Pap,'” (one expert) said. There are other important preventive interventions that happen during a visit “just for a Pap smear,” such as counseling about smoking cessation, diet, and exercise, and screening for other problems such as sexually transmitted disease and depression. Doctors may be slow to adopt new Pap smear guidelines because the public health message about the benefit of routine preventive visits (what is confusingly termed here a “wellness visit”) has not been strongly articulated.
The story referred to “extra costs women may incur to get childcare and make it to the doctor’s office — plus the costs to a strained healthcare system of ordering more tests.”
Not applicable. The story wasn’t about benefits, but rather, the suggested lack of benefit from screening too often.
The story did a good job explaining that there can be harm from screening too often – something that often isn’t explained in screening stories:
“…any extra screening increases the chance of getting a “false positive” result on a test — meaning the test finds something that doesn’t turn out to be cancer. In that case, women would need more invasive tests to rule out disease, Roland said, and risk “undue harm” from those procedures.
“Some of it is, don’t go looking before you need to go looking because you’ll find stuff that you’d rather not find,” said (one observer), who was not involved in the new study.
The story did not make clear who was surveyed. Family practitioners? Ob-gyns?
There were other issues. The story never fully described the evidence behind the recommendations that “generally call for a three-year wait after normal tests.” Reuters may have thought that was outside the scope of the current news on the current study, but it would have better informed readers about the quality of the evidence.
Then, of course, there’s the confusion over the screening intervals that was addressed in the review summary above.
An independent expert from the American Society for Clinical Pathology was interviewed – someone not involved in the study.
Comparison of screening intervals was at the heart of the story: “There’s really no advantage to annual screening compared to screening every two or three years,” lead author Katherine Roland told Reuters Health.
The entire story was about cervical cancer screening being made TOO available too often.
The story reminded readers that this type of survey – and its findings – don’t stand alone:
“Results from a survey of the same doctors have shown that many also give the HPV test alongside Pap smears to women under 30 — which is not recommended, because HPV is common in young women and often goes away on its own (see Reuters Health story of July 4, 2011.)”
It’s clear the story didn’t rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Like Michael Corleone of science reporting that @garyschwitzer is (he tries to get out, bullshit disguised as #science #journalism keeps pulling him back in!), he drops this on @nytimes idiocy 🙄 in reporting T1 diabetes "cure"
HT @HealthNewsRevu
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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